DCPVAR-0000-02812 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

of the approximately 140 trailers contemplated by the plaintiffs, plan. These facts perhaps would constitute a use of the property at least to the extent of 40 trailers. The question is not the quantum of use of the property by the plaintiff but whether the plaintiff had any vested right to such use." Ulrich vs. Saukville, 7 Wis. 2d 173, 96 N.W.2d 612 at 615 (1959). Unfortunately, the developer actually rented lots to mobile home owners without first obtaining the required license. Thus, his "use" was not "lawful" when commenced. The court in Ulrich did, however, issue this important holding which we believe controlling in this case: "The fact as to use in this case would be controlled by Schroedel vs. Pagels [supra] were it not for the fact that the claimed use by the appellant of the premises prior to the enactment of the zoning ordinance was unlawful and in violation of the [township] trailer camp [license] regulation ordinance." Id., 96 N.W.2d at 616. In Schroedel, discussed supra, the developer of apartment buildings was protected from a rezoning because he had invested $50,000.00 for surveys and architectural fees in contemplation of the prospective construction of lawful apartment buildings. Under Ulrich, the investment in improvements made to define 40 vacant mobile home pads or sites in contemplation of a plan to install 140 pads or sites "would be controlled by" the law protecting such an investment, but only if the use was lawful when the investment was made in the actual or prospective use. Here, the use was lawful. The key holding of Ulrich here applicable is that the law of nonconforming uses will protect the lawful investment in the mobile home pads or sites, whether occupied or not, as distinguished from the mere relocation or replacement of the mobile homes moved in and out of a park. 11