Hello,
I purchased a 40 space park that is grandfathered, EG, the zoning designation of the park has changed since the park was built around 1960. I have a document from the County from 2009 stating that the park is 40 spaces, but no more.
About ten months ago, I received a notice of violations from the County. They would like me to remove six homes and some sheds, etc. Apparently, the new Planning Commissioner has the `I’m the new sheriff in town’ syndrome and wants to clean up grandfathered zoning around the county.
I applied for an exemption before the Planning and Zoning Commission a few months ago. I was denied.
Today, the County, sent my attorney a letter stating that I must remove homes or pay a fine.
Does anyone else have experience with these matters?
What state are you in? Get a really good attorney and find out what the state laws are regarding this type of issue. The state laws may have something that trumps the local ordinances. Find out what your recourse is… I would at least be trying to argue that the county then owes me the market value of the lots and the future income from those lots that I would lose since I based financial decisions (purchase and investments/improvements) on their policies and now they want to revoke them.
Sorry it took me a while to get back to you. Yes, my attorney is very experienced with zoning issues. She represents the state MHP Assoc.
My case is now in front of a judge. Fortunately, there was a very relevant case in the Iowa Supreme Court that deals with grandfathered zoning. It was decided in favor of the park owner. So, I am optimistic that I will receive a favorable outcome.
@mhparkpeter1 I have run into that same issue with a park I just put an LOI on in Iowa. Please let us know how it goes. The county I am buying in said the same thing about grandfathering, that they don’t see it. I had the head of the Iowa MHP association on the phone with the county people.
Hello All, Just a quick update… In March of 2019, the County Judge ruled that the MHP may continue to operate as 40 spaces (the same number of lots as when I purchased it). The County then appealed the decision in May. Today, I received word from my attorney that the District Court reversed the lower court’s decision. So I am a bit bummed. I will speak with my attorney in the morning and then will update the forum. It’s good to know that I am not alone in facing these challenges.
BTW, I have no interest in politics and I hope I’m not opening up a can of worms on the forum. That being said, the State of Iowa has a severe housing affordability crisis. The Governor is constantly talking about it. However, in this county, the planning and zoning officials seem to be doing everything in their power to reduce the supply of affordable housing.
The only power that I know that can exceed your grandfathered rights is that of health and safety. Are these homes too close to the others as to create a fire hazard? Is that why they also wanted the shed removed? Most cities want to see at least a 10’ separation between structures. That being said, if that’s the problem, you need to find all the other violations of this rule throughout the city and then build it into a discrimination case. Or you might be able to build a cinder-block firewall between the offending units (I know of at least one park owner that did this successfully in CA).
There has been at least one park owner that I know of that filed a federal discrimination case through HUD against a city for trying to deny them the use of their lots. The argument was that the city was trying to kick the poor out of the city by picking on the mobile home park. The park owner won, and the city had to pay financial damages plus be under the supervision of HUD for a period of years (a worse punishment to them than the money). I don’t know the details of your case, but you might discuss that concept with your attorney, if their actions are inappropriate.
Hi Frank, the County didn’t site any health and safety violations in the park.
Their argument is that removing a 16’ wide home and replacing it with a 17’ wide home is an EXPANSION of a non-conforming use. That is the gist of their legal argument.
