Bowman v. Holsopple, 3--672A23
| Decision Date | 15 February 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 3--672A23,3--672A23 |
| Citation | 292 N.E.2d 274,155 Ind.App. 272 |
| Parties | Chester E. BOWMAN et al., Appellants, v. Paul R. HOLSOPPLE et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Chester E. Bowman, Jerrald A. Crowell, Bowman, Crowell & Swihart, James R. Solomon, Hoffman, Moppert & Sullivan, Fort Wayne, for appellants.
Ralph R. Blume, Blume, Wyneken, Levine & Clifford, Fort Wayne, for appellees.
The issue presented by this appeal is whether the single-family dwelling of appellees is a 'mobile home' within the definition thereof under the zoning ordinance of Allen County.
An improvement location permit was issued by the Zoning Administrator of Allen County, Indiana, to Paul Holsopple, one of the appellants herein, for the construction of a single-family dwelling at 8020 Trier Road, Fort Wayne, Indiana.
Certain landowners in the immediate vicinity appealed the granting of the improvement location permit to the Board of Zoning Appeals of Allen County, Indiana. The members of the Board of Zoning Appeals heard the evidence presented to them and found that the structure in question was a 'mobile home' as defined in the zoning ordinance of Allen County.
Holsopple, along with the other petitioners-appellees, filed their petition for a writ of certiorari. Such petition alleged illegality in the decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals in that no evidence was adduced that the structure of petitioners was a 'mobile home.' A writ of certiorari was issued to the Board of Zoning Appeals of the County of Allen which duly and timely filed its return thereto. Pursuant to IC 1971, 18--7--5--92, Ind.Ann.Stat. § 53--788 (Burns 1964), the trial court heard testimony to supplement the facts disclosed by the return to the writ of certiorari concerning the construction and make-up of the structure. The trial court found that the decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals 'that the structure in question is a 'mobile home' * * * is not supported by the evidence.' Accordingly, the trial court reversed the decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals of Allen County.
The petitioners duly and timely filed their motion to correct errors which was overruled by the trial court, and this appeal followed.
The parties are agreed that the following definition of a 'mobile home' as quoted from the zoning ordinance of Allen County is pertinent to the instant appeal:
'Mobile Home, Mobile House, House Trailer or House Coach--A single family dwelling designed for transportation after fabrication on streets and highways on its own wheels or on flat-bed or other trailers, and arriving at the site where it is to be occupied as a dwelling complete and ready for occupancy, except for minor and incidental unpacking for assembly operations, location on jacks or permanent foundations, connection to utilities and the like.'
To determine if the structure in question is a 'mobile home' the above quoted definition must be applied to the following facts which are summarized from the record before us:
The structure consisted of three units. The main unit was approximately 12 by 70 feet in size. It was mounted on a metal frame with three axles, two wheels on each axle. The main unit was pulled by a truck to the installation site.
Inside the main unit was a smaller, collapsible unit which unfolded from the main unit to make a room approximately 12 by 15 feet in size when attached. Another unit referred to as a 'tag-along' unit was mounted on a metal frame with a detachable tongue and one axle, and pulled by a truck. This unit was approximately 12 by 35 feet in size.
The smaller units were bolted to the main unit and the entire structure was mounted on a concrete foundation. The wheels were removed and stored under the structure, however, the frames and axles remain attached.
The exterior was made of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wildwood Park Community Ass'n v. Fort Wayne City Plan Commission
...legal capacity to challenge its decision. J. I. Case Co. v. Sandefur (1964), 245 Ind. 213, 197 N.E.2d 519, 521; Bowman v. Holsopple (1973), 155 Ind.App. 272, 292 N.E.2d 274, 277; Metropolitan Dev. Com'n of Marion Cty. v. Camplin (1972), 153 Ind.App. 622, 288 N.E.2d 569, 571. The trial court......
-
Farrior v. Zoning Board of Appeals, (AC 21358)
...Inc. v. McKee, 19 Ill. App. 3d 374, 379, 311 N.E.2d 194 (1974), aff'd, 61 Ill. 2d 168, 334 N.E.2d 131 (1975); Bowman v. Holsopple, 155 Ind. App. 272, 275-76, 292 N.E.2d 274 (1973) (each concluding items in question were "mobile The legislature also distinguishes between mobile homes and mot......
-
Farrior v. Zoning Board of Black Point Beach
...Inc. v. McKee, 19 Ill. App. 3d 374, 379, 311 N.E.2d 194 (1974), aff'd, 61 Ill. 2d 168, 334 N.E.2d 131 (1975); Bowman v. Holsopple, 155 Ind. App. 272, 275n76, 292 N.E.2d 274 (1973) (each concluding items in question were ''mobile The legislature also distinguishes between mobile homes and mo......
- State ex rel. Shorter v. Allen Superior Court, 3-1272A94