Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/05/2003

Home

Page 2 --May 10, 2003 Mobile Homes -- Zoning ordinance limits mobile home placement Landowner claims ordinance preempted by the National Manufactured Housing and Safety Standards Act GEORGIA (03/10/03) -- King owned a parcel of land that was partially with/n the city limits of Bainbridge. This parcel was zoned R-2, and mobile home units were specifically excluded from R-2 districts. In 1995, King placed a mobile home on her land. When city officials learned of tiffs, they informed King she was in violation of the local zoning ordinance. They also told her she could move the mobile home to the portion of her prop- erty outside the city limits. King apparently ignored this suggestion and installed electricity, a septic tank, and a porch, all without first obtaining required permits. The city sued to enforce the zoning ordinance, and King responded by claiming the zoning ordinance violated her substantive due process fights. She also claimed the ordinance was preempted by the National Manufactured Hous~ lng and Safety Standards Act of t974. The act set minimum standards to re- duce injuries, promote safety, and improve quality. The lower court decided the ordinance was constitutional and not preempted by the act. . King appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. The ordinance was upheld and enforceable. Attempts to require higher construction standards on mobile homes than those established under the act were illegal. However, the act did not prevent local governments from excluding mobile homes from certain z°ning districts. By excluding mobile homes from R-2 districts, the city did not impose any safety or construction requirements on mobile homes, but it only determined these types of homes were inappropriate in an R-2 district. Thus, the act did not preempt the zoning ordinance. Further, the reason the city enacted the ordinance and restricted mobile homes was to regulate the quality of housing stock and ro promote safety con- siderations. The reasons established by the city for making these restrictions were not arbitrary or unreasonable and bore a substantial relati0n to the public health, safety, and general welfare of residents. Citation: King v. City of Bainbridge, Supreme Court of Georgia, No. S02A]685 (2003). see also: Scurtock v. City of Lynn Haven, 858 F. 2d 152] (t988). see also: Clark v. Winnebago County, 8]7 F. 2d 407 (]987). 440 Nonconforming Use - Boatyard seeks to build offices and fire lane Was this an expansion of use ? CONNECTICUT (2/29/03) -- Ave~ owned property located within the Water-