Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/06/2000

Home

Page 2 January 25, 2000: . ": ". Z.B. Appeal- Neighb~wing landOwner Opposes rebuffding he can'~ee from hi.~ tractor OHI0 (i'2/i~)9'9)'"" Midwe;t Fir~workS"~anufactur~g' C<~/p.'~y its fireworks factory on 86 acres '~)f. land:..-~The.factory' consisted of.16.buildings- and several temporary trailers. Midwest and its predecessors operat~, the.fac.-. tory for a amber of years ~efore Deerfield township zoned the land as a resi- dential district. The factory was an allowed nonconf0rm ng use since 1979. .. In 1982, an explos:on and fire destroyed _t~.o of Midwest's~bUildings. The two buildings had a combined area of 1,5.3,6'square feet. F~fteen years later, Midwest'appliedi~o;~.a zomng'certLtica,t~...to replace the. destroyed .buildings w~th a 7,200-square-f00t 'b~ilding: Th,e.,:Deerfield zomg inspector"granted' · Twenty'days' m~er the'inspector ~ssued the ce~ificate; Carver, who owned l~ro~rty near the factory;' filed an' appe.d itisputmg the ce/tifi~atk s ~ssuance. Deerfield s zoning resolutions allowed ,.any.~ aggrieved person to appeal ad- ministrative.dec, stuns to the board of zgmng appeals.-"Aggrieved'" was not ~pmals-h~i ~;-b~made·'wiair/:0 da}~" 0~ th~'deasion. They were/~ade hy aU~g a-'hotice of app,al with the ofacer,.¢.h."o?ued the decision and th~ bo~d. BeCaus~ he'was ur/abl~"t0'f'md the zoning inspector, :Carver filed hi~ appeal with the'tOWnshiP clerk"along with a ch~d~ for $'~00; a/id asked her to.forward a copY to the zoning inspeCtor and ~he bohr& The' proper procedure for appeal was not specified. ~. ...... ... ' . ..... ...,': ..... ..... . . : .... .. ".": ;' The board scheduled a public hearing; Carver and Lomaz, who controlled lvlidwest~ both appeared. At the hearing, Lorenz referred to Carver as a "lunatic neighbor:'.., and characterized his action~ in_bringing the appeal as "shenani- gans,',[ Car~er's'attomeY accused Loma~:$f attemptin~ to "flimflam". and.'.'bam- bemuse he could see the buitdmgs from.' h~.q. pt0perty.:when.nchng'his tractor,--H~~d, the. ~.dnifig inspector did not prop*ay inVestiga{a;' th~ pi6Posed buiid~x0a~'auch Ia~er th~ the dest~6yed buildings, and- 15"years was' a:n unreasdnable am6unt' Of time'for Ivlidwest to wait beforg'rebuilding. He Claimed the~dkla~' constituted an abandonment of r~iii]cti6ii bf bi.i'iid~gs'dh:m/iged by fife: H'd relied oii ~ affidavit submit" t~d by L0~'~d ~. adv[~'~"0f the bOara'~' ~seI. He"~Ud V'~i'y lirae indep'en- d&nt inspection of the pi~op'erty' and did not attempt to d~termine the' ~ize' of the previously aest~0yed ~:i~_a~ngs. ~e a.~c?m.. _~m~'s e.xp?a.t..ion that problem.q" delayed reSuilding. ,. :. -.- ...-. The t~ard'r~voked the zoning' cei-tififi~t~:~d 19Iidw, est sue~l. After the Court affkmed the board's decision, lVlidWest appC_.:ale'd:. It'argued'the'¢oard had no authority to revoke an already granted zoning certificate, the. appeal was. not properly co~nmenced w..ithin the 20 days requir:ed., and Carver was'.not' an aggrieged pets. on. . . . .... ..