03-24-1994 Public Hearing and Regular Meeting ZBOA

Browse Search

The grounds upon which such Appeal is based are as follows: 1. There is a conflict between provisions of the Zoning ordinance. Paragraph 1 of Section 4-202 reads as follows: "Any non-conforming use may be continued in operation on the same land area and on the same floor in a structure or structures which were occupied by the non-conforming use on the effective date of any amendment by which the use becomes non-conforming, but such land or floor area shall not be increased, except that such limitation shall not apply for farming uses." Paragraph 3 of section 4-201 reads, in part, as follows: "If a building occupied by non-conforming uses is destroyed by fire or the elements, it may not be reconstructed or rebuilt except to conform with provisions herein......" In its application to a site for a manufactured home, section 4-201 is in conflict with section 4-202. section 4-202 guarantees to the owner of a site for a manufactured home to continue that use despite amendments to the zoning pattern of the ci ty , but your interpretation of section 4-201 would deprive such owner of such right if a manufactured home which happens to occupy such site is destroyed by fire. Such interpretation fails to appreciate the basic concept of a site for a manufactured home.. It is often anticipated that one manufactured home will, someday, be removed from the manufactured home site, and replaced with another. See, for example, Tex. Rev. civ. Stat. Ann. Art. 5221f, Sec. 4A(a), a state statute which encourages and mandates cities' allowance of replacement of mobile homes with HUD Code manufactured homes. The nature of a manufactured home makes that feasible, whereas it would not be feasible in the case of a home of conventional construction. The manufactured home that happens to be situated on that site for the moment is not significant to the continued non-conforming use of the land. Your interpretation of section 4-201 would result in the illogical and ironic conclusion that a manufactured home could be removed from a manufactured home site without interrupting the right to continue to use that land for such purpose so long as such use was not abandoned, but if the manufactured home which happened to occupy such site was destroyed by fire, the right to use the land for such purpose would be terminated. 2. The ordinance is unconstitutional. First, the ordinance excludes manufactured homes from R-1 zones. Under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Rl124.93 - 2 -