Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/01/2000

Home

:~ Z.B. January 10, 2000 -- Page 5 became effective in November 1998. The city council then zoned the Beckmann quarry as a quarry district, but zoned the two new tracts as residential. Redland sought to establish its right to operate a quarry on the two new tracts as a nonconforming use by filing a registration of a nonconforming use with the director of the dep .a3-tment of building inspections. The director ap- proved Redland's registration statement. After a public hearing, the board of adjustment upheld the director's decision. The board found the preexisting leases gave Redland nonconforming use rights. Several city taxpayers and the city of Shavano park~ a municipality near th~ quarry, sued. The court affirmed the board's decision. Shavano Park and two San Antonio taxpayers appealed. Redland argUed the leasing agreements created nonconforming. USes and that it had commenced its nonconforming use. DECISION: Reversed. ..- The two new tracts did not qualify as nonconforming uses. A nonconforming use was 'one that lawfully existed'before the effective date of a zoning restriction that was allowed to continue in nonconformance with the restriction. Acquiring and setling aside property in contemplation of a future use was insufficient to establisha nonconforming use. It was not enough that the property was bought for the nonconforming purpose. Similarly, leas- ing land in reliance On existing zoning laws was generally insufficient to estab- lish a nonconforming use. Redland presented evidence that several permits required for quarrying had been obtained for both tracts, that some plans had been drawn up, and that tests had been conducted on one of the tracts to determine the mineral reserves ex- isting on the tract. These efforts were merely preparatory and did not create a nonconforming use. -. · - There was also some evidence the tract was used for quarrying at some undisclosed time in the past. However, it was undisputed that any blasting, mining, or production on the tract ceased before the tract was annexed. The previous, discontinued use did not establish the right to a nonconforming use. Additionally, some construction had ~commenced on both tracts before they were annexed. Redland began constructing gabions for filtering storm water runoff and a haul road. The construction of the road could not establish a non- conforming use because it was commenced after the petitions for annexation were filed. Finally, Redland claimed materials were "stockpiled" on one of the tracts. However, the stockpiling project was. undertaken well after the petitions for annexation were filed and was done specifically for the purpose of creating a nonconforming use. Citation: Wende v. The Board of Adjustment of the City of San Antonio, Court of Ai)peals of Texas, 4th Dist., San Antonio, No, 04-99-00577-CV (1999). ,. see also: City of Fort Worth v. Johnson, 388 S. W. 2d 400 (1964).