Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/03/2008

Home

Zoning Bulletin Nuisance-Neighbors object to operation of mulching facility After complaints, city seeks injunction Citation: Salyer v. City of Stanton, 2007 WL 2994602 (Ky. Ct. App. 2007) KENTUCKY (10/12/07)-Salyer purchased property in a heavy in- dustrial zone that adjoiried a residential section of the city of Stanton. Soon after he bought the land, he began using it to operate a mulch facility. Neighboring property owners began to complain about the fa- cility; objections were made about the noise, smell,@water, and airborne mulch coming from the facility, among other concerns. A group of residents complained about the business to the city's plan- ning commission. Ultimately, the zoning enforcement officer inspected the property and determined that Salyer's use of the property violated both the city's zoning and nuisance ordinances. The enforcement offi- cer brought an action in court, seeking an injunction that would require Salyer to halt his mulch operation. Initially, the court referred the matter to the city's board of adjust- ment for a determination regarding whether the use of the property was allowed in the zone or if it required a conditional use permit. After a lengthy hearing, the board decided unanimously that Salyer's use of the property was not a permitted use under the city's zoning ordinance. The board also concluded that the mulch operation did not meet any of the conditional uses under the city's zoning ordinance and that the contin- ued use of the facility for mulch operations would be "detrimental to sur- rounding properties and possesses characteristics which would be a nui- sance" to the city's residents. Salyer appealed the board's decision to court. Salyer's appeal was combined with the enforcement officer's initial re- quest for injunction. After a hearing, the trial court agreed that the use of the property as a mulch facility was not permitted in the zone. It is- sued an order prohibiting Salyer from bringing mulch onto the property. Salyer appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. On appeal, Salyer claimed that the city's zoning ordinance was not valid or enforceable because it was not properly enacted. He, further contended that he was denied due process because the board acted im- properly. Finally, he argued that the mulch facility was allowed under the city's zoning ordinance, or, if not, it should have been found to be a valid conditional use. With regard to Salyer's first argument, he cited an absence of proof that the ordinance was lawfully enacted, but the appeals court noted such an absence did not "equate with a determination that [an ordi- nance was] ... invalid." Rather, "the law raise[d] a presumption in favor 10 60