Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/03/1998

Home

Page 2 -- December 24, 1997 Z.B. Nuisance m LandoWners say theirjunkyard properties are 'grandfathered' public nuisances Town of Delafield v. Sh'arpley, 568 N. W.2d 779 (Wisconsin) 1997 Sharpley and his son owned adjoining lots totaling 9.5 acres in the town of Delafield, Wis. Since about 1960, both men used their lots to maintain equipment and vehicles. According to a town deputy, the town received numerous complaints about the condition of the Sharpleys' properties. The deputy investigated and found many vehicles on the lots, most unlicensed and in disrepair. In 1993, the town notified the Sharpleys they were violating several town ordinances. When the Sharpleys failed to respond, the town sued them, saying the Sharpleys violated the town's public nuisance ordinance. Inspections of the lots revealed more than 90 vehiclesi including a school bus that appeared to be lived 'in. In addition, the lots were was strewn with batteries, radiators, and other car parts. Hornets had built nests in the vehicles. .. .The ordinance defined "public nuisance" as something that continued to "[s]ubstantially annoy,.injure or endanger the comfort, health, repose, or safety of the public." Among the listed'Public nuisances was "the accumulation ... of junk or other unsightly debris ... and other items which depreciate property values." The town asked for judgment without a trial. The Sharpleys argued their use of their lots as a public nuisance was grandfathered because it predated the town's zoning ordinance. The court sent the case to a jury for it to decide whether the Sharpleys' use of their lots was a valid nonconforming use. The jury found in favor of the Sharpleys, but the court reversed the verdict. It found the Sharpleys didn't have a valid nonconforming use of their lots. The Sharpleys appealed. DECISION: Affirmed, but for different reasons. By keeping debris on their lots, the Sharpleys violated the town's public nuisance ordinance. It didn't matter whether the Sharpleys had a valid nonconforming use for their lots. Once the use was determined to be a public nuisance, the Sharpleys had to eliminate it. Towns could prohibit even valid nonconforming uses when they constituted public nuisances or harmed the public health, safety, and welfare. The Sharpleys didn't dispute that their lots created a public nuisance. (The son pointed out that woods .surrounded both properties, but that didn't affect the determination.) Because the town presented enough evidence the Sharpleys' junkyard-style lots harmed the public health, safety, and welfare, it was entitled to judgment on its claim the Sharpleys violated the ordinance. see also: State v. Quality Egg Fartn h~c., 311 N. W. 2d 650 (1981). Zoning Violation State charges owner with illegally subdividing land State v. Bilbao, 943 P. 2d 926 (Idaho) 1997 Bilbao owned land in Adams County, Idaho. He wanted to subdivide the property, and submitted to the county a plan to subdivide his property into six