Court Opinion

ID: 9624481
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 07:04:35.423396+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:05:47.873314
License: Public Domain

*428HOWELL, J.,
dissenting.
I dissent. The majority opinion misconstrues a Clackamas County ordinance, giving it a meaning that potentially violates the Clackamas County Comprehensive Plan and the goals of the state’s Land Conservation and Development Commission.
The issue before this court is whether defendants William and Mary Dunham violated a Clackamas County zoning ordinance when they put their new 1,500 square foot mobile home on their property. The ordinance provides, in part, as follows:
"Permitted Uses:
"In a Recreational Residential District, the following uses are allowed as hereinafter provided:
"A. Principal Uses
"1. One single-family dwelling unit per lot or parcel of land.” (§ 22.3)
"Single-family dwelling” is defined in the ordinance as:
"A detached building containing one kitchen, designed for and occupied exclusively by one family and the household employees of that family, but not a trailer house.” (§ 3.2)
"Trailer house” is defined as:
"* * * a building designed in such a manner that it may be moved from one location to another.” (§ 3.2)
Thus, the specific issue is whether modem mobile homes are "trailer houses” within the meaning of the Clackamas County ordinance.1 Stated another way, are modem mobile homes designed in such a manner that they may be moved from one location to another?
It is conceded that a mobile home is built to be moved from the place of manufacture to its initial homesite. But I do not believe that the ordinance was *429intended to cover that initial movement. The words "designed in such a manner that it may be moved from one location to another” connotes a design that foresees continual movement. In other words, the ordinance proscribes buildings that are designed to be moved on the lot and off again.
Generally, modem mobile homes are designed to be moved once — from the dealer to the homesite. If the manufacturer’s initial design is controlling, then the size of this mobile home, over 1,500 square feet of usable floor space, and the cost and difficulty of moving it is evidence that the manufacturer’s design was that it not be moved after it was initially placed. If, on the other hand, we must look to the installer’s design, then the mobile home’s attachment to a foundation, the detachment of the wheels, axles and tongue, and the addition of a driveway, skirt and patio all point to a design on the part of the purchaser to fix the mobile home to that piece of property so that it would not be moved again. Surely, if the installer had any intent to move the mobile home again, he would not have removed the wheels, axles, springs and tongue with a cutting torch and placed the home on a foundation.
In addition to the language of the ordinance itself, the history of trailer houses and mobile homes argues for a different result in this case. The ordinance was passed in 1960, a time when the state of the art in the mobile home industry was such that the phrase "trailer houses” had a meaning unrelated to the reality of modem mobile homes.
"The early house trailers were not mobile homes, and not regarded or intended by their occupants as permanent dwellings. They were small recreational vehicles, usually 10 or 12 feet long, simple in design and manufacture, light, easily transportable, practical, useful, and economical.” Hodes and Roberson, The Law of Mobile Homes 1, Ch. 1.1 (3d ed 1974).
One major reason for excluding trailer houses from residential areas was the transient nature of trailer dwellers:
*430"The development of mobile homes as a generally acceptable form of housing has come about so recently that the stereotyped picture of the 'trailer dweller’ still raises the hackles of many tradition bound community planners.” Shepard’s Mobile Homes and Mobile Home Parks 3 (1975).
When the ordinance was enacted, trailer houses were vehicles whose mobility was determined by one’s desire to go. Today, mobile homes are an alternative type of economical housing. The "mobility” of modem mobile homes is more myth than reality.
"The mobile home dweller is not inclined to move his home unless required to do so. * * * Most of the occupants of mobile homes prefer to remain for long periods in a park or neighborhood which they have grown to like. * * *
"Mobility, in fact, has become important only in moving the home from factory to dealer’s sales center, and from there to homesite. A 20-foot-wide mobile home comprising two sections requires two licenses for highway movement, but only one for mobile home park registration.” Hodes and Roberson, supra at 8. (Footnote omitted.)
Thus, given the language of the ordinance and the history of the development of mobile homes, it seems clear that the ordinance was designed to exclude structures that may be moved on and off the land like trailer houses. This mobile home does not fit that definition.
I cannot believe that a structure 68' x 24' with 1,500 square feet of living space containing a kitchen, living room, dining area, family room, utility room, three bedrooms and two bathrooms placed on a concrete foundation constitutes a trailer house within the meaning of the 1960 Clackamas County ordinance.2
I would affirm the Court of Appeals.

 The decision of the majority that the mobile home in this case constitutes a proscribed trailer house under the 1960 Clackamas County ordinance should have no bearing on some other municipal ordinance relating to mobile homes, trailer houses, or modular homes.

 I also conclude that my interpretation of the 1960 ordinance is consistent with the Clackamas County Comprehensive Plan and with the goals and guidelines of the state Land Conservation and Development Commission.