DCPVAR-0000-02812 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

James Gregorius March 19, 1997 Page 2 owners can make." Id., at 34. For this reason alone, the owner's equitable (it's not fair and we should encourage upgrading of trailers) argument must fail. Dane County Ordinance section 10.21(5) provides that "any nonconforming use, the location of which is changed to another part of the premises, shall be considered abandoned one (1) year after the locational change and, in any event, any nonconforming use at the new location shall be invalid." (emphasis added) The Supreme Court has recognized this same general principle by holding "nonconforming uses are closely limited and are not to be enlarged in derogation of the general scheme of the ordinance, and hence the right to continue such a use may be lost by such acts ... as moving the structure to a different though near -by location." State ex rel. Brill v. Mortenson, 6 Wis. 2d 325, 331a (1959) citing, Yorkville v. Fonk, 3 Wis. 2d 371, 378 (1958). Therefore, the relocation of trailers may be held to result in the loss of the right to continue the nonconforming use. It should also be noted that this mobile home park is nonconforming as to the spacing and parking requirements and not zoning. Therefore, their argument that they should be able to move the trailers as they wish within the park so long as they do not increase the number is of even less weight. Replacement of old trailers with new ones will likewise waive the right to continue the nonconforming use. Ordinance section 10.23 prohibits alteration or restoration of a nonconforming use that exceeds 50% of the assessed valuation of the structure. In County of Columbia v. Bylewski, 94 Wis. 2d 153, 170 (1980), the Supreme Court specifically held that when the owner "demolished and removed the old mobile home and substituted it with a new one, he thus made alterations in excess of 500 of the assessed value of the nonconforming structure and, therefore, lost the protection of the nonconforming use doctrine." Therefore, replacement of trailers in this case should also result in loss of the right to continue the nonconforming use. The argument of the owner that upgrading of trailers should be encouraged flies in the face of the intent of zoning ordinances, which is to eliminate nonconforming uses as soon as possible. In conclusion, the spirit of zoning law is to eliminate nonconforming uses as quickly as possible. Clearly, substitution of a new mobile home is an alteration in excess of 500 of the assessed value and may not continue as a nonconforming use. Since the location of some of the trailers is currently nonconforming because there is not 30 foot spacing, the movement of these