Court Opinion

ID: 9595616
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:42:09.17167+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:01:29.312992
License: Public Domain

LANGTRY, J.,
concurring.
The dissent would allow defendant the benefit of at least a temporary prohibited use of zoned property because the county neglected to base its case upon both its zoning and building codes. I think this was unnecessary. When the defendant first located his mobile home upon the property in question, he did so in violation of Section 104-2(46) of the zoning code, as the court’s opinion has pointed out. From that point on, I think he could gain nothing by changes he made in the foundations unless such actions were undertaken by lawful methods. He did not follow lawful methods, so I view his home as it was at the point where he completed its location. To hold otherwise would be to require the county to start unnecessary additional court action after this case is over.