Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/07/1995

Home

Z.B. January 1995 -- Page 5 ington becauseiof the unfounded or irrational fears of some residents. It had redeeming soci}tl justification, and did not need to be confined to a "combat zone." Washington~;_MetropolitanArea Transit Authority v. Holiday Tours lnc., 559 F. 2d 841 (1977). Nonconformin~ Use Landowner.Asserts Grandfather Rights to Nonconformin~ Use Even Though Previous Use Was Also Unlawful White's Excavation and Construction Co. Inc. v. Board of Zoning Adjustments!of City of Daphne, 636 So.2d 422 (Alabama) 1994 From Sept. i!6, 1987, White's Excavation and Construction Co. Inc. (White) did business in p residentially zoned area in the city of Daphne, Ala. White used its property!for an office, storage, parking, and some maintenance of heavy equipment. On Sept. 21i 1987, the city adopied its land use and development ordi- nance. This repl~tced all'prior city zoning ordinances. In 1991, the :ity's code enforcement officer informed White that its oper- ation in a resi& ntial area violated the city's 1987 zoning ordinance. White provided docum~ .ntation the business had been operating before the new zon- ing law was ena :ted. The enforcement officer sent White a letter stating the business could c, intinue to operate under the ordinance's grandfather clause. White's neig] tbor appealed to the city's Zoning Board of Adjustments. The board reversed the enforcement officer's decision to allow White continued commercial use ~f the property, because the prior zoning ordinance had desig- nated White's prpperty as residential. White appealed, and the court granted the city and the ~oard judgment without a trial. White appeaied again. It claimed the business should have been grand- fathered as a nonconforming~ use, and the board illegally spot zoned the prop- erty because the icity allowed an office building and a post office to operate nearby. DECISION: Affirmed, in favor of the city and the board. The city coul{l require White to stop operating its business. The city ordinance provided that a nonconforming use was land use that lawfully existed when the ordinance was passed, but which became illegal un- der the new ordin~tnce. White was not operating lawfully before the city passed its 1987 ordinance. The area had been zoned residential since at least 1977, so White did not quallify as a nonconforming use. As for the sp~Ot zoning issue, the operation of an office building or post office in a resider~ial area differed significantly from the operation of a heavy equipment business in the same area. Because the post office and office build- ing were not commercial establishments, there was no illegal spot zoning of White's property. Ex parte Lake ~orest Property Owners Assocm ~on, 603 So. 2d 1045 (1992).