Opinion ID: 2277215
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Rockland's Setback Requirement for Manufactured Housing

Text: Maine's statute regulating the placement of manufactured housing provides: Municipalities shall permit manufactured housing, as defined in this section, to be placed or erected on individual house lots in a number of locations on undeveloped lots where single-family dwellings are allowed, subject to the same requirements as single-family dwellings.... 30 M.R.S.A. § 4965(2) (Pamph.1988). The Rockland ordinance provides in section 19-305, subsection 9 (Location of Manufactured Housing), that Modular Homes are permitted in all zones in which one family dwellings are permitted. That language certainly complies with the first portion of the state statute requiring that manufactured housing be permitted in a number of locations where single-family dwellings are allowed. 30 M.R.S.A. § 4965(2) (Pamph.1988). Under subsection 8 (Manufactured Housing Standards), however, the Rockland ordinance states that [a]ll manufactured housing shall be located at least three hundred (300) feet from any dwelling which exceeds one and one-half (1½) stories in height. Section 19-305(8). There is no similar requirement for the location of sitebuilt housing. This distinction appears to violate the last phrase of the state statute requiring that manufactured housing, where it is permitted, be subject to the same requirements as single-family dwellings.... 30 M.R.S.A. § 4965(2) (Pamph.1988). Rockland argues that since there are a number of locations in Rockland without one and one-half story buildings, manufactured housing can be located in those locations in the same fashion as sitebuilt housing. Thus, Rockland maintains that the 300 foot requirement operates simply to exclude certain areas of town from manufactured housing. Since the statute requires only that manufactured housing be permitted in a number of locations, not in all locations, Rockland maintains that it is in compliance with the state statute. We reject this argument. The state statutory command to municipalities is simple: identify a number of locations where manufactured housing will be permitted subject to the same requirements as sitebuilt single-family homes. Rockland has simply not done so and we see no reason to impose a forced construction on its ordinance to save it. Under Rockland's interpretation, no one can point to any location on a map and say with certainty: manufactured housing is permitted there, for on any given day the erection of a two-story sitebuilt house might be commenced next door. Indeed, someone who purchased a lot intending to place a manufactured housing unit on it would be subject to the day-to-day risk that a neighbor might commence construction of a two-story sitebuilt home first. Only manufactured housing, not sitebuilt housing, is subject to this risk and limitation. We believe that the Legislature intended municipalities to distinguish specific geographic areas that were either appropriate or inappropriate for manufactured housing. Historic districts or a village area composed of older period homes, for example, are singled out in the legislative history. See L.D. 1441, Statement of Fact (111th Legis.1983). Although the statute permits municipalities to establish specific design criteria for manufactured housing (items like roof, foundation and exterior siding, see 30 M.R.S.A. § 4965(2) (Pamph.1988)), a setback requirement is not commonly considered a design criterion. [3] The Superior Court, therefore, was entirely correct in finding this portion of the Rockland ordinance inconsistent with the state statute.