Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/04/2000

Home

Page 4 -- December 24, 1999 z.g. enjoys a vested property right. Additionally, the natural expansion of a non- conforming use is a constitutional right protected by the due process clause. Once it was determined a nonconforming use was in existence, an overly tech- nical assessment of the use could not be utilized to stunt its natural develop- ment and growth. Nor could a change in instrumentality defeat the purpose or existence of a nonconforming use. Ctanton introduced modem technology into his topsoil business. This was not a new use. Although 75 percent of the dirt used to make the topsoil was from neighbors, Clanton had brought dirt onto his property from other loca- tions in the past. Although Clanton dried the topsoil and bagged it before trucking it off the property, such a process did not constitute a new use. Finally, although Nutra Soils Inc. rather than Ctanton conducted the top- soil business, a nonconforming use, once established and not abandoned, runs with the land, and this right was not conf'med to any individual or corporation. Citation: Clanton v. London Grove Township Zoning Hearing Board, Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, No. 2304 C.D. 1998 (1999). see also: Pappas v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 589 A.2d 675 (1991). see also: Silver v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 255 A.2d 506 (1969). Zoning Change -- City changes certain uses from 'permitted' to '.conditional' MISSISSIPPI (11/16/99) -- Walters owned various parcels of property in Greenville that he used for lounges, taverns, poolrooms, game rooms, video arcades, or other businesses. All uses were historically "permitted" uses. How- ever, due to neighborhood complaints and testimony from a police officer who patrolled near one of the properties, the Greenville Planning Commission rec- ommended that the areas be changed from "permitted-use" areas to "condi- tional-use'' areas. Supposedly, such businesses attracted drug dealers; encour- aged gambling, loud music, and crime; and caused serious loitering and park- ing problems. Walters sued, claiming he suffered a substantial loss in the character, use, permitted use, intended use, and value of his real property, ultimately arguing the change in the ordinance constituted a taking of his property. DECISION: Affirmed. The zoning change was valid and no taking occurred. Before property was reclassified from one zone to another, there must have been proof that either (I) there was a mistake in the original zoning, or (2) the character of the neighborhood had changed to such an extent as to justify re- zoning and public need existed for the rezoning. Different persons, including a police officer, testified the character of the neighborhood had deteriorated to the point of fostering crime and troublesome activities. The justification for the proposed amendment was that the zoning change would help curb crime and trouble by allowing the planning commission