×

Court rules on RV dispute in Chester

CHESTER — The City of Chester is required to enforce an ordinance regarding an in-development RV park, according to a judge’s ruling on Tuesday.

The Hancock County Circuit Court ruled the city must enforce its ordinance regarding a mobile home park on Ninth Street and Collins Memorial Drive that had been developed by James Reed and Sunset Development LLC.

The judgment was forwarded to city officials on Friday and announced following a swearing-in ceremony for the new city council and administration.

A petition for Writ of Mandamus was filed on May 4 against the city following complaints from multiple residents over development of the park. Many of the residents, during several city council meetings, stated the park had not been approved by the city and it would devalue other properties in that area.

A city ordinance requires those who wish to develop an RV park to submit an application which is then to be reviewed by city council. Residents contended that Reed had not submitted the application but proceeded with construction.

According to City Clerk Marlene Fleming, what this means is that no further construction can happen until Reed submits an application and it is approved by the city.

“If he files an application for a permit, we would consider that application and would enforce the ordinance the way it was written,” Fleming said.

According to the eight-page ruling from Judge James P. Mazzone, testimony provided stated the city had informed Reed and Sunset Development of the ordinance prior to development of the park, and later sent them a letter regarding the ordinance and the application for which Reed was required to fill out, which had not been returned to the city.

Further testimony stated that although no mobile homes were on the site and no water had been hooked up, work had been done on the site “that appears to be consistent with developing a mobile home and/or trailer park type development.” Reed reportedly did not dispute the claims.

However, also in the ruling, the validity of the ordinance was called into question over how it was passed according to West Virginia Code, which stated proposed ordinances shall be read by title at not less than two meetings with at least one week intervening between each meeting unless a member of city council demands the ordinance be read in full at one or both meetings.

City council had adopted an ordinance regarding mobile homes and mobile home parks in 1997, but then approved an amended form of the ordinance unanimously over the course of three meetings in September and October 2002. The court found that the three readings done in 2002 met the requirements by state code and was actually done more times than needed, and thus saw the ordinance as valid.

The court also found that the city has made attempts to enforce the ordinance, but that Reed and Sunset Development had not complied with the application process, and also had not provided enough information to the city to determine if the park is allowable. The court determined that the city does not need to wait until an actual mobile home enters the park before the ordinance can be enforced.

Once the application is submitted, the city will review the matter and determine whether a permit can be granted.

(Rappach can be contacted at srappach@reviewonline.com)

NEWSLETTER

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

I'm interested in (please check all that apply)
Are you a paying subscriber to the newspaper? *

COMMENTS

[vivafbcomment]

Starting at $4.73/week.

Subscribe Today