Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/05/1999

Home

z.go September 10, 1999 -- Page 7 dumped on his property came not only from his own property, but also from his customers' properties. The zoning ordinance didn't conflict with the state statute that distinguished between solid and yard waste and that prohibited the disposal of yard waste with solid waste. The ordinance's failure to distinguish between solid and yard wastes in locating sanitary landfills didn't allow the commingling of solid and yard wastes, it merely addressed where such facilities could be located. Citation: State v. Board of Zoning Adjustment of Kansas City, Court of Appeals of Missouri, Western Dist., No. WD 56340 (1999). see also: Craig v. City of Macon, 543 S.W. 2d 772 (1976). Zoning Violation Owner claims accumulation of trash and metal is nonconforming use OHIO (8/9/1999) m Bunnell owned property in Wilson Township. In 1995, he bought a semi-trailer to use as a storage building. He planned to convert the trailer into a proper storage facility but didn't have the money to finish the project. The township inspected Bunnell's property and found accumulations of trash and metal, as well as the inoperable trailer. It issued Bunnell three viola- tion notices stating his property violated zoning regulations governing 'yard maintenance and disabled equipment or vehicles. The zoning regulations were adopted in 1967 and amended in 1998. In November 1998,. the zoning inspector hand-delivered the third violation notifie. The zoning officer also told Bunnell in person what conditions he had to rectify to comply with the zoning ordinance. The zoning officer gave Bunnell until Dec. 3 to correct the violations. Bunnell continued the illegal use, and the township cited him for violating the zoning ordinance. The court found him guilty and ordered him to pay $50 in court costs. Bunnell appealed, claiming he established a valid nonconforming use be- fore the township amended its zoning regulations in 1998. DECISION: Affirmed. Bunnell was properly convicted of a zoning violation. Bunnell's use of the property wasn't a valid nonconforming use. Bunnell put the trailer on his property and allowed trash and metal to accumulate on his property before the township amended its zoning regulations, but he didn't show how this established a nonconforming use. Though he claimed he was preparing to alter the trailer into a valid storage building, preparing to begin construction didn't create a vested right or establish a nonconforming use. Bunnell was given ample notice of the violations and ample time to correct the violations. The township gave Bunnell three-notices of violations. The last of these notices was hand delivered by the zoning inspector, who told Bunnell in person exactly what he had to do to comply with the zoning ordinance.