Kimsey v. City of Rome, 33702
| Decision Date | 04 October 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 33702,No. 1,33702,1 |
| Citation | 84 Ga.App. 671,67 S.E.2d 206 |
| Parties | KIMSEY v. CITY OF ROME et al |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court.
The described trailer, equipped as a dwelling, blocked up and located on a vacant lot, and connected to the water mains, sewer and electric lines of the city where located, and in which people are living, is a dwelling within the purview of the zoning ordinance of the City of Rome restricting the minimum floor space of a dwelling to 700 square feet in the district where the lot and trailer are located.
Hicks & Culbert, Rome, for plaintiff in error.
Parker, Clary & Kent, Rome, for defendant in error.
This case arose out of an alleged violation of a zoning ordinance of the City of Rome. Mrs. R. L. Kimsey was the owner of a vacant lot located at the corner of Sherwood Road and Shorter Avenue in the City of Rome, the lot being within the area covered by the zoning ordinances claimed to have been violated. She permitted her son-in-law and daughter to place an automobile trailer on said lot, the same to be used by them as a place in which to live. The trailer was blocked up and was stationary. It had electricity, water, and sewerage, the same being connected with the electric lines, water mains, and sewers of the City of Rome. The daughter and son-in-law of Mrs. Kimsey slept in the trailer and did their cooking in it and used it as their home or dwelling place. Mrs. Kimsey was officially notified to remove the trailer from the vacant lot on the ground that it was in violation of Section 5, R. 1-A, Paragraph D, of the zoning ordinance of the City of Rome, which is as follows: 'The minimum ground floor area of a dwelling, exclusive of portecocheres, attached garages and porches, shall be seven hundred (700) square feet in this district.' The trailer had 300 square feet of floor space.
Mrs. Kimsey appealed to the Board of Adjustment of the City of Rome, and this board ruled adversely to her contentions, and she then appealed to the Superior Court of Floyd County. Her appeal there was dismissed, and she excepted and brought the case to this court.
The question for determination is whether the trailer here involved is a dwelling within the purview of the zoning ordinance above quoted, which restricts the area to dwellings with a minimum floor space of 700 square feet? The trailer was equipped as a dwelling and was connected with the electric lines, the water mains and sewers of the city, and it was blocked up and had come to rest on the lot in question. Mr. and Mrs. R. L. Burch, the son-in-law and daughter of Mrs. Kimsey, were living in and using the trailer as their dwelling place. In fact, the record shows that they purchased the trailer at a cost of $4000 and placed it on the lot and equipped it as a place in which to live. It appears that they were unable to obtain the necessary materials to build a dwelling house and that they purchased the trailer instead and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Napierkowski v. Gloucester Tp.
...121 N.Y.S.2d 288 (Sup.Ct.1953); Commonwealth v. McLaughlin, 168 Pa.Super. 442, 78 A.2d 880 (Super.Ct.1951); Kimsey v. City of Rome, 84 Ga.App. 671, 67 S.E.2d 206 (Ct.App.1951); Lower Merion Tp. v. Gallup, 158 Pa.Super. 572, 46 A.2d 35 (Super.Ct.1946), appeal dismissed Sub nom. Gallup v. Tp.......
-
Simmons v. State
...respect, it was built for and was being used by deceased, as a shelter and habitation, in short, a dwelling.' In Kimsey v. City of Rome, 1951, 84 Ga. App. 671, 67 S.E.2d 206, it was held that a trailer equipped as a dwelling and connected with electric lines, water mains and sewers, was a d......
-
Town of Manchester v. Phillips
...the matter of the mobility of the unit or otherwise, see Davis v. City of Mobile, 245 Ala. 80, 82-83, 16 So.2d 1; Kimsey v. City of Rome, 84 Ga.App. 671, 672-674, 67 S.E.2d 206; Township of Wyoming v. Herweyer, 321 Mich. 611, 614-616, 33 N.W.2d 93; Corning v. Town of Ontario, 204 Misc. 38, ......
-
Fedorich v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Torrington
...Review, 91 R.I. 277, 162 A.2d 807; Rundell v. May, 258 So.2d 90 (La.App.); State v. Work, 75 Wash.2d 204, 449 P.2d 806; Kimsey v. Rome, 84 Ga.App. 671, 67 S.E.2d 206; Corning v. Ontario, 204 Misc. 38, 121 N.Y.S.2d 288; see additional collection of cases at annot., 96 A.L.R.2d 232, 251-53; 1......