City of Cordele v. Hill

300 S.E.2d 161, 250 Ga. 628, 1983 Ga. LEXIS 593

• Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
• Decided: February 24, 1983
• Docket: 39334
• Status: Published

Opinions

Weltner, Justice.

The sole question here is whether or not Mrs. Tanner’s dwelling is a “mobile home” within the meaning of the following ordinance enacted by the City of Cordele: “A Mobile Home is a detached, single-family dwelling unit designed for long-term occupancy; designed to be transported after fabrication on its own wheels, arriving at the site where it is to be occupied as a dwelling unit complete, usually including appliances and furniture and ready for occupancy.”

The evidence shows without contradiction that the dwelling was fabricated in two separate units, which arrived on the lot in separate units, and that neither unit was designed to be occupied as a dwelling independently of the other, but to the contrary, the two units were designed to be joined together.

The rule of construction in this state is that of the majority of states, that “zoning ordinances should be strictly construed in favor of the property owner, and ambiguities in the language of zoning ordinances should be resolved in favor of the free use of property.” Fayette County v. Seagraves, 245 Ga. 196, 197 (264 SE2d 13) (1980). Accordingly, inasmuch as the structure was not designed to arrive “at the site where it is to be occupied as a dwelling unit complete,” (emphasis added), it is without the ambit of the ordinance, and issuance of the injunction by the trial court must be reversed.

Decided February 24, 1983. Roberts, Roberts & Rainwater, Guy Velpoe Roberts, Jr., Edwin T. Cotton, for appellants. Davis, Pridgen & Jones, John C. Pridgen, for appellees.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur, except Hill, C. J., Marshall, P. J., and Gregory, J., who dissent.