Court Opinion

ID: 9753628
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 19:20:33.763733+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:27:39.159214
License: Public Domain

Grimes, J.,

dissenting:

I cannot join in the opinion of the court which takes a simple ordinance amendment designed to confine mobile homes to mobile home parks and converts it into a restriction against the creation of such parks without permission of the selectmen.
The court does this by construing “established” to refer only to those parks existing at the time of the adoption of the ordinance rather than to those parks existing at the time the home is placed therein. The ordinance contains no specific prohibition against mobile home park development nor are there any provisions which empower the selectmen to control their creation. Moreover no building permit is required because a mobile home park is not a “structure or building.”
The court, by reading into the ordinance a provision giving the selectmen power to control the development of such parks, creates one which in my judgment is void for vagueness. There are absolutely no standards, guidelines, or criteria for the selectmen to follow and so the granting or denial of permits can be at their whim or caprice. Ferretti v. Jackson, 88 N.H. 296, 188 A. 474 (1936); cf. State v. Dean, 109 N.H. 245, 248 A.2d 707 (1968); Bethlehem v. Robie, 111 N.H. 186, 278 A.2d 345 (1971).
I think the only purpose of the amendment was to change from the policy of allowing mobile homes anywhere in a *458residential or agricultural district to a policy of requiring them to be located in land areas especially laid out and equipped, that is “established” as mobile home parks at the time the homes are located thereon. This is the way in which the word “established” was used in the passage from American Jurisprudence quoted in the court’s opinion.
The restriction which the court implies is a serious limitation not only on land use but also upon the number of mobile homes which may be located in the town. Mobile homes provide comfortable and decent shelter for many people unable to afford conventional types of homes. I would require that any restrictions upon their use be clearly expressed and reasonable. I consider the amendment as construed by the court to be neither.