Opinion ID: 2277215
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Compliance with the Manufactured Housing Act

Text: Section 19-305 of the Rockland Ordinances deals with the regulation of manufactured housing and mobile home parks. Subsection 5 provides: No person, firm, corporation or other legal entity shall locate a manufactured home in the City of Rockland, or move a manufactured home from one lot or parcel of land to another, without a permit from the Code Enforcement Officer. The Code Enforcement Officer shall issue the permit within seven (7) days of receipt of a written application and submission of proof that the manufactured home meets the requirements of section 4, A. Section 4, A deals with federal standards for so-called newer mobile homes and state standards for so-called modular homes, both of which apply to Paladac's unit. Paladac's initial application for a permit included no proof of compliance with section 4, A, and Paladac admits that it placed the unit on the site without a permit. Paladac did, however, subsequently refer the Code Enforcement Officer to compliance evidence affixed to the unit's kitchen sink (located there because of federal law requiring that all manufactured housing have proof of compliance attached to it) and also provided a letter from the manufacturer. The Code Enforcement Officer refused to consider both these pieces of information because he had already denied the permit and because the parties were engaged in litigation. The Zoning Board of Appeals declined to overrule him. Although the manufactured housing unit was clearly placed on the site illegally (as Paladac's concession reflects), we agree with the Superior Court that it was unreasonable for the Rockland authorities to ignore the evidence of compliance that Paladac eventually submitted. Rockland argues that its Zoning Board of Appeals has only the authority to reverse, or affirm, wholly or in part or ... modify the order of the Code Enforcement Officer, citing section 19-310(2) of its zoning ordinance. That provision also gives the Board all the powers of the [Code Enforcement Officer]. Section 19-310(2). [2] We are content that this language provides the Board adequate authority to send the matter back to the Code Enforcement Officer to consider new evidence or to decide the matter itself. The Superior Court properly remanded the case to the Zoning Board of Appeals. It should not, however, have directed a further remand to the Code Enforcement officer; that decision is up to the Board.