Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/01/1998

Home

Page 4 August 25, 1998 Z.B. In 1996, within a few weeks after the appeals court's decision, the DEC issued Troy Sand a new permit. Concerned Citizens asked Herrick, the town code enforcement officer, to issue a stop-work order halting further mining. It claimed the mine lost its nonconforming status because Troy Sand didn't have a valid mining permit for more than two-and-a-half years. Herrick refused to issue a stop-work order, so Concerned Citizens asked the DEC to issue one. The DEC refused because Troy Sand had a valid renewal permit. Concerned Citizens sued Herrick, seeking to force him to shut down the mine because it had lost its nonconforming status. The court found the mine's use was "discontinued" by Troy Sand's failure to maintain a valid mining permit for more than one year, and the mine lost its legal nonconforming status as a result. The court issued an order that permanently prohibited Troy Sand from operating the mine. Troy Sand ap, pealed. DECISION: Reversed. The mine didn't lose its nonconforming status. The case was returned to the trial court for resolution of other matters. The town's zoning restrictions required the complete and actual nonuse of a nonconforming use to "discontinue" that use, and Troy Sand never actually shut down its mining operation for more than one year. Troy Sand mined the property through the expiration of its permit in 1993 and continued mining thereafter with the DEC's consent. It temporarily stopped mining after a court ordered it to stop, but that order was 'stayed pending an appeal. The DEC issued Troy Sand a renewal permit a few weeks after the appeal was resolved. The trial court shouldn't have found the nonconforming use was discontin- ued based on Troy Sand's failure to maintain a valid mining permit from 1993 to 1996. An otherwise legal nonconforming use di_dn't lose its status simply because the owner failed to renew a license, certificate, or permit. Most importantly, Ti/oy Sand continued mining activities after its permit expired with the explicit conse'nt of the DEC, the state agency responsible for processing its renewal application. see also: Concerned Citizens v. Herrick, 636 N.Y.&2d 470. see also: Marzella ~,. Munroe, 509 N.E. 2d 342. Variance - - Owner has contractors build garage too close to neighbors' yard Citation: Roberts v. Village of Lordstown, Court of Appeals of Ohio, 11th Appellate Dist., Trumbull County, No. 97~T-0149 (1998) Roberts hired a company to build a 20-by-20-foot detached garage on her property in Lordstown, Ohio. The contract required Roberts to get any neces- sary permits. Roberts went to get a permit for the garage. She told the zoning clerk she was unsure about what she needed to do. The clerk helped Roberts complete