(dissenting). I would affirm the circuit court’s order of summary disposition because subsection b of § 9.07 of the Fremont Township Zoning Ordinance was intended to apply to residential districts only. Exceptions in ordinances, like statutory exceptions, are construed narrowly. Fink v Detroit, 124 Mich App 44; 333 NW2d 376 (1983); Rzepka v Farm Estates, Inc, 83 Mich App 702; 269 NW2d 270 (1978). Subsection b provides that one mobile home may be placed on five acres of real estate provided that the mobile home meets the minimum floor space requirement of 720 square feet. Since 720 square feet is the minimum floor space requirement for structures located in residential districts, I think this is evidence that subsection b was meant to apply to residential districts. The minimum floor space requirement for commercial uses is 320 square feet. Subsection b should not be extended to commercial uses when its minimum floor space requirement is a clear indication that it was intended to apply to residential uses only.
In addition, subsection b allows the mobile home to be placed on the property "permanently.” "Permanently” is not defined in the ordinance. However, subsection b may be read with subsection e, which refers to a mobile home on a "permanently constructed foundation.” Such a "permanent” mobile home "shall not thereafter be deemed a mobile home, but a dwelling within the meaning of this Ordinance.”
The majority’s reading of the ordinance defeats the overall purpose of zoning, which is to keep like uses of land together and to separate unlike uses. Mobile homes are clearly required to be in mobile home parks in commercial districts. However, the *617zoning ordinance recognizes that in some cases a mobile home is more appropriately treated as a residential use when it is permanently placed on at least five acres of land and it has at least 720 square feet of floor space. Thus, it defeats the purpose of zoning if such a mobile home is allowed in commercial districts rather than restricted to residential districts.
The order of the circuit court should be affirmed.