Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/05/2002

Home

Z.g. November 10, 2002'-- Page 5 Nonconforming Use -- Corporation buys 440 capacity mobile home-park County passes ordinance to prevent expansion NORTH CAROLINA (10/01/02) --The Dutch Key Corporation purchased a 90-acre mobile home park in July 1995. The park was constructed in. 1972 and was approved to accommodate 440 mobile homes, including pads, sewer, wa- ter, and electrical connections. At the time the park opened, it was a permitted use under the county zoning laws. After the park opened, but before the corporation's purchase, the countyl adopted an ordinance, prohibiting mobile home parks altogether, except for nonconforming uses. The park had operated.as a' legal nonconformi.ng use since 1992. The 1992 ordinance prohibited the park from enlarging orincreasing the nonconforming use by alter/ng.structures.or placing neW structures on open land if it required more space or greater nonconformity. The park operated to full capacity until 1987, when the wastewater treat- ment systems became more demanding and could only service about 140 mo- bile home residents. In 1995, the corporation hired an engineer to upgrade the wastewater treatment system to serve all 440 spaces. As a result, the county amended its ordinance to state, "Improvement to water and sewage treatment systems in order to accommodate more mobile homes in a mobile home park shall be considered an enlargement of a nonconforming situation and shall not be permitted." The corporation sued, challenging the validity of the amended ordinance.. The court dismissed the case, and the corporation appealed, arguing it had a vested right in the park. DECISION: Affirmed. The lower court properly dismissed the case. The corporation argued it had a "vested right" in the pmk. The vested rights doctrine evolved as a constitutional Limitation' on-the government's right to restrict the use of an individual's property. The corporation maintained it had a vested right to ~epopulate the entire park up to the original capacity. The corporation's argument failed, however, because it didn't have a vested · right. It could not prove it had either the county's permission or a valid permit authorizing it to expand the park to 440 units before the ordinance was amended' in 1996. Nor did the corporation have valid permits or the county's permission to expand before the ordinance was passed. In fact, it hadn't even applied for permits. Moreover, the corporation's proposed upgrade of the wastewater' sys- tem was an increase in the extent of the nonconforming use. The county's attempt to stop the expansion was in harmony with the state's policy against the expansion of nonconforming uses. Citation: Huntington Properties v. Carolina Village, Court of Appeals of North Carolina, No. COA01-884 (2002) see also: Fantasy Worm blc. v. Greensboro Board of Adjustment, 496 &E. 2d 825 (1998). I 33