Court Opinion

ID: 9550088
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:29:10.269726+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:09:52.597410
License: Public Domain

O’CONNELL, C.J.,
dissenting.
The ordinance restricting the use of the property to “only single family and two family dwellings” was intended to limit either single or two family use to one dwelling. To make sense out of the ordinance the dwelling, if the product of two separate structures, would at least have to have some semblance of architectural unity. The drawing below, made to scale from photographs in evidence, clearly demonstrates that defendant has placed on its property two houses with distinct architectural features, and has simply joined them with a carport.

This clearly does not comply with the ordinance and therefore the decree of the trial court should be reversed.
Holman, J., joins in this dissent.