by Gary Taylor
Heck v. City of Pacific and City of Pacific Board of Zoning Adjustment
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, October 28, 2014
The Hecks have operated Pacific Mobile Home Manor on the same tract of land since 1983. Within Pacific Manor is a mobile home pad addressed as 303 South Second Street, which is positioned approximately 14 feet from the pad to its south, and the same distance from the pad to its north. When renters moved out with their mobile home in the late 2000s, the Hecks attempted to install a new mobile home of the same size on the vacant pad around two years later. The city of Pacific, however, informed the Hecks that the new mobile home could not be placed upon the pat unless they obtained a variance from the city code provision – adopted in 1996 – that requires 20-foot spacing between mobile homes or other structures. Mr. Heck testified before the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) that he was under the impression that he already had a variance for the pad because the pad and mobile home on the pad were permitted when he bought Pacific Manor in 1983. The ZBA voted to deny the variance, and the Hecks appealed.
The Hecks argued that Pacific Manor existed in its present configuration, including the spacing of mobile home pads, prior to the adoption of the 20-foot spacing requirement in 1996; in other words, that their legal nonconforming use applies to the mobile home park as a whole and not on a “per pad” basis. Mr. Heck testified “I mean I can’t really move all the trailers out and get rid of them and totally reorganize that all. So I’m just trying to maintain the property and keep it as nice as I can.”
The city, on the other hand, argued that even if the present configuration and spacing of pads in Pacific Manor was a lawful nonconforming use, it has since been extinguished by “structural alteration” – moving the old mobile home off the pad. Furthermore, the city argued that the nonconforming use was abandoned because the pad sat vacant without a mobile home for two years.
The Court of Appeals concluded that the BZA did not analyze the case as a nonconforming use case; rather, the BZA was simply concerned with whether the Hecks’ application met the standard for a variance. “A nonconforming use differs from a variance.” The Court of Appeals remanded the case to the ZBA to hear evidence on the issue of whether the Hecks are entitled to continue a lawful nonconforming use, noting that “if in fact the Hecks have continued their lawful nonconforming use of Pacific Manor, the spacing requirements [of the city code] do not apply and no variance is needed.”
