Lead Opinion
Opinion by
Middlеtown Township has appealed from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County reversing the decision of the township’s Zoning Hearing Board which denied Hume Village’s application for a validity variance.
In January 1972, a time before the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code provided fоr curative amendment applications, Hume Village applied to the Zoning Hearing Board for a validity variance to construct a mobile home park consisting of 188 units on
Hume Village appealed the Board’s decision to the court below, which, although agreeing with the Board that a mobile home park might be constructed in the R-l district if applicable requirements were met, concluded that Section 101 IB was an explicit prohibition of mobile home park use throughout the township, unconstitutional and therefore of no effect. The court remanded the case to the Boаrd with leave to impose reasonable conditions upon the construction of Hume Village’s mobile home park.
Where no additional testimony is taken by the lower court, our scope of review is limited to a determination of whether the Zoning Hearing Board abused its discretion or committed an error of law. Lewis v. Lower Gwynedd Township Zoning Hearing Board,
The nub of the case is whether or not Section 101 IB, by prohibiting the use of any lot as a trаiler camp, unconstitutionally excludes mobile home parks from the township. We agree with the court below that it does. Article I, Section 103.21 of the township’s zoning ordinance defines a trailer cаmp as “a lot or premises used for occupancy by two (2) or more
Since Section 1011B excludes mobile home parks, the township had the burden of proving thаt the regulation bore a substantial relationship to health, safety and the general welfare, Bоard of Supervisors of Upper Frederick Township v. Moland Development Co., Inc., supra. It has conceded that no such proof was offered.
Order affirmed.
Order
And Now, this 21st dаy of May, 1980, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County, No. 72-4103-10-6, is affirmed.
Concurrence Opinion
Since Article I, Section 103.21 of Middletown Township’s zoning ordinance defines a trailer camp as “a lot or premises used for occupancy by two (2) or more trailers,” I concur in the reasoning and result reached in this casе.
However, I am of the view that “trailer camp” is a term of art which is different from either, a “trailer park” or “mobile home park.”
A “trailer camp” indicates a place where peoрle go with the intent to stay only a week or two. The very word “camp” means, according to Webster’s New Encyclopedic International Dictionary (1966), “a рlace of temporary shelter, lodging or residence” or “areas designed for rest or reсreation.” In a trailer camp, the children, if any, do not attend the local schools. The parents pay no school tax in that location, and the owners do not consider the trailer to be their home or domicile.
A “mobile home park” or “trailer park,” on the other hand, indicates something entirely different. This type of trailer or mobile home is designed to serve as one’s permanеnt living quarters and is not the type of vehicle one hauls around when wishing to spend a week away from home on vacation or travel. This vehicle has an address and the people living there are usually subject to local taxation.
Even though, in the ordinance in question, the word “trailer,” as defined, mаy include the types of trailers found in both trailer camps and trailer parks, I am of the view that the word “camp,” when used in conjunction with the word “trailer,” signifies something other than a trailer park or mobile home, park.