Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/04/1997

Home

Z.B. January 1997 N Page 5 expect architects and other professionals to comply with unarticulated standards." see also: Hoberg v. Bellevue, 884 P. 2d 1339 (1994). Nonconforming Use N Owners of private park want it declared nonconforming use John O. Clay Exploration v. Lawrence Township Board of Zoning Appeals, 670 N.E. 483 (Ohio) 1995 The owners of Clay's Park, a private park in Lawrence, Ohio, asked the town zoning inspector for a certificate of nonconforming use. Both before and after the town adopted its zoning ordinance in 1960, the park had been used as a day camp and as a picnic and camping area. Activities on the property included swimming, hay rides, outings, square dances and the sale of refreshments. The zoning inspector said only swimming, picnicking and camping were nonconforming uses. The park owners asked the board of zoning appeals to rule they were entitled to a certificate stating the park was a nonconforming recreational/entertainment/amusement facility. At the hearing, a witness testified live music events had occurred at the park as early as a year before the town enacted its ordinance. The board refused to grant the general certificate and refused to add live music and craft shows as existing nonconforming uses. It did, however, add some activities (such as hay rides and dancing) to the list of nonconforming uses that had occurred on the property before the zoning ordinance was adopted. The park owners appealed the board's decision in court, again saying they were entitled to a general certificate of nonconforming use. The court modified the board's decision, adding certain festivals (such as "Christian Alive" and the "Festival of Lights") and craft shows to the list of nonconforming activities, noting similar activities had taken place continuously since the late 1950s. Both sides appealed. The town claimed the lower court should not have ruled on the issue of the festivals because the board had not considered whether festivals were a nonconforming use and the park owners had not even brought up the issue. In any case, the town said, the court's ruling that festivals and shows were nonconforming uses was wrong, while the board's decision was well supporte& The park owners contended the court should have granted a general certificate of nonconforming use. DECISION: Affirmed. The lower court properly ruled festivals were an existing nonconformihg use and a general certificate of nonconforming use would have been too broad. The lower court properly added festivals as a nonconforming use. The town was wrong when it claimed the park owners never brought up the issue of festivals; the park owners said the park was a recreational/entertainment/ amusement facility, which included use for festivals.