Opinion ID: 69265
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The City's Interpretation of the Municipal Code

Text: Artisan/American also asserts that the City's interpretation of the Ordinance was unreasonable  and is thus evidence of discriminatory intent  because the City refused to deem the project's proposed access road a city street, excepting it from the project's bounds, and because the City treated the structures in the adjacent mobile home park as single family dwellings. As previously discussed, when Artisan/American offered to change the project's design, it proposed moving the actual apartments farther away from the residential triplex. The City found that the change would not save the project from a violation, however, because the changes required the addition of an access road, and the access road would run from the side of the plot closest to the residential triplex. The City considered the access road a part of the apartment project, meaning that nothing had changed for purposes of the Ordinance, and the project was still within 300 feet of the residential triplex. Artisan/American asserts that this interpretation is unreasonable, even though the ordinance states that the 300-foot measurement shall be to the property line ... of the apartment project. The City's reading draws the line to the beginning of any construction  e.g. the beginning of an apartment, road, etc. Artisan/American urges only that this strict interpretation is not necessary and has nothing to do with the apparent purpose of the Ordinance. Of course, the City also rejected Artisan/American's application because the project stood within 300 feet of two plots of land containing single family residential dwellings: a residential triplex and a mobile home park. Artisan/American urges that the dilapidated mobile home park, and the mobile homes on it, are not single family dwellings, and the City's contrary interpretation is unreasonable. As Artisan/American sees it, to classify manufactured homes as single family dwellings is not compelled by the language of the ordinance and thus an unreasonable interpretation of the City's code. We see no reason to disagree with the district court's determination that the City's interpretation was not unreasonable or arbitrary, assuming arguendo that evidence of unreasonableness  without a showing that non-protected applicants were treated differently  can do all that Artisan/American demands of it. [11] The City's code is muddled on this point, and provides ample support for either side. The Ordinance itself does not define single family dwelling. Two different definitions are, however, provided elsewhere in the municipal code: a house or any other site built building used for single family residential purposes, [12] or, alternatively, a dwelling to be occupied by one family. [13] City ordinances also define manufactured home park as an area that contains four or more manufactured home spaces that are offered for rent. [14] Manufactured home is defined as a structure... transportable in one or more sections... which is ... designed to be used as a dwelling. [15] It is undisputed that a manufactured home is a dwelling. Although Artisan/American argues that a structure cannot be both transportable  as a manufactured home must  and site built  as arguably required of a single family home by one of the code's two definitions; thus, so says Artisan/American, a manufactured home cannot be a single family dwelling. Artisan/American does not, however, contend that a manufactured home is designed for use by more than one family at a time  in contrast to an apartment or condominium building. We are not convinced that a manufactured home cannot qualify as a dwelling to be occupied by one family and thus cannot say that the City's interpretation was unreasonable. That the Ordinance might be intended to preserve the property values of single family homes, or that the City's interpretation may not be the only  or even the best  interpretation, does not demand a different result. While a new apartment complex might actually improve the value of a manufactured home park, nothing in the record indicates that the City's decision was based on anything other than a reasonable (if literal) interpretation of a convoluted municipal code. Even if a fact issue does exist as to whether the City is relying on a claimed violation of the Ordinance as mere pretext, Artisan/American has offered no evidence to support a reasonable inference that race was a significant factor. [16] Artisan/American instead relies solely on the assertion of Vernon R. Young, Jr., Artisan/American's co-owner, that a former city council member told him that one or more other city council members uttered words to the effect that we don't want those people here and we already have enough of those people here. No city council member has come forward in support of this assertion, nor has any other person who might have heard these remarks firsthand. There is, then, insufficient summary judgment evidence to support a reasonable inference of racial animus.