Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/06/2008

Home

Zoning Bulletin or threaten to protect the interest; and the threat must be by appro- priate means. The court found that Cyclone's ownership interest in Mohan Road was a legally protected interest. The court also found that Cyclone had justification to protect its interest. But, the court said, Cyclone's actions in protecting the interest by placing a piece of equipment in the road were not by appropriate means. More- over, said the court, Cyclone admitted its actions were to keep the road open during construction and this had nothing to do with its property interest in the road. See also: Owsley v. Robinson, 2003 WY 33, 65 P.3d 374 (Wyo. 2003). Non-conforming Use-City seeks to prevent a nonconforming use, which the owner claims is grandfathered Citation: City'orRed Bank v. Phillips, 2007 WL 4460223 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007) As early as 1951, the property was used as a multi-family dwell- ing by the Roberts family. The Roberts family lived in the upstairs unit. Two downstairs units were rented out. In December 2002, one of the tenants moved out. The owner, Mrs. Roberts, died shortly thereafter. The final tenant moved out in July 2003. The property was vacant until April 2005 when one tenant moved in. Phillips purchased the property in July 2005. Phillips leased or in- tended to lease three separate dwelling units, at the property. The property was, for many years, located in an R-l Residen- tial Zone. Under the city's zoning ordinance, this zone did not permit multi-family residential use of buildings. It only permitted single-family residential use. A provision in the ordinance "grand- fathered" non-conforming uses. The "grandfather" provision al- lowed lawful uses at the time the ordinance went into effect to con- tinue, even if they were in violation of the ordinance. However, the ordinance provided that if a non-conforming use was discontinued for 100 consecutive days, it lost its "grandfather" protection. The property would then have to be brought into compliance with the zoning ordinance. The city determined that Phillips' use of the property as a multi- family dwelling was in violation of the city's zoning ordinance. , The city demanded Phillips use the property only as a single-family dwelling. Phillips refused. The city brought an action against Phil- lips, asking the court to order Phillips to use the property only as a single-family dwelling. 10 150 'J " ---..., (J ) .,--'