Dissenting Opinion
(dissenting). Appellant has been convicted of violating section 62 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Kingsbury, Washington County, for locating her dwelling in an R-15 district which permits ‘ ‘ one single-family dwelling per lot with such accessory buildings as may be associated with
Subdivision i of section 61 of the ordinance provides thаt trailers “ either as separate units or as component parts оf a building shall be located in trailer parks.” It is conceded that this locаtion is not in a trailer park.
No contention is made against appеllant that she violated any setback or area restriction, that there' was any sanitary or building code violation or that her domicile contravenes any of the ordinances of the town applicable to рermanent residences except that, instead of being built on the site by carpenters and masons, it was prefabricated elsewhere and brоught to its present location on wheels. It is possible, of course, that, if thе exigencies of life require in this mobile era, appellant may chоose to abandon the permanent foundation on which this home has bеen mounted and move elsewhere as the changing economics of the day may indicate. She or her family may find better employment in other lоcalities in an age when the average college graduate сhanges his city every five years of his lifetime. Meanwhile this abode is as permanent as though it were built where it now abides. It is subject to real property taxation as a permanent' home (New York Mobile Homes Assn. v. Steckel, 9 N Y 2d 533). This court said in the case cited that “ The situation presented is no different from that involved in any case where a lessee erects a building or other improvement on the realty of his landlord” (p. 539). In that case the trailer was treated as part of the real estate although on leased land; the present case is even stronger in favor of the appellant inasmuch as here it was placed on a permanent foundаtion (insofar as anything is permanent in this changing life) upon appellant’s own premises. It is as much a residence as though it were an ordinary house which had been moved (as houses sometimes are) and brought to its resting place on wheels or rollers. If such a structure is subject to taxation
Since this structure comes within the description of a single-family dwelling under the zoning ordinance, it is entitled to the same regulation as any other single-family dwelling.
The convictiоn of appellant should, in my view, be reversed and the charge dismissed.
Judgment affirmed.
Lead Opinion
Judgment affirmed.