Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/04/1995

Home

i Z.B. February 15, 1995 . Page 5 The ~ourt ruled Likanchuk could expand its sand and gravel removal to all four lots~because sand was a "diminishing asset." It also held the township could noi prohibit the recycling because the company reasonably relied on the certificat_~ of use and occupancy and the township waited too long to object to the recyc!ing after knowing about it. The township appealed. DECISI(?,N: Reversed and returned t° the lower court. ' Likarichuk could continue its sand and gravel business On the first lot, and could remove up to 500 cubic yards per year. However, Likanchuk could not expand tl~is nonconforming use to the other three lots. Although nonconform- ing uses Were sometimes expanded when they involved diminishing assets like sand and ~ravel, the company had to show an intent tO expand its operation to ali four lo~s before the zoning ordinance was enacted. It never showed any such intent. ~ Also, iLikanchuk had to stop the asphalt recycling operation.-The zoning officer hail no authority to issue the certificate, and certainly'could not convert the compSny's use to a concrete and asphalt recYcling center. Just because the township!saw asphalt and concrete on the property did not mean it knew Likanchu~ planned a full-scale recycling operation. Therefore, it did not wait too long t~ try stopping the business. Mah~tth v. Landscaping Technologies Inc., 552 A.2d 1021 (1989). Residential Zoning-- City Orders Earth Removal Business to Stop Blasting City o~. Woonsocket v. Forte BrotherS Inc., 642 A.!2d 1158 (Rhode Island) 1994 Forte Brothers Inc., ran an earth-removal business on land that lay in two Rhode Island cities, Woonsocket and Cumberland. The Woonsocket land was zoned for iesidential use and the Cumberland land was zoned industrial. The co~mpany's business involved blasting, which was prohibited in resi- dential zones by Woonsocket's zoning ordinance. The company ignored a Woonsoc~t order to stop blasting. The city got a court order prohibiting Forte Brothers from any further blast- ing until a[ter a trial. Forte Srothers appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. The city provided enough evidence to get a court order prohibiting blasting until the trial. The property was zoned residential and the company did not get a variance ior an exception for the blasting. Therefore, it violated the zoning ordinance.iAlthough the company could continue removing earth from the Woonsock{t land, it could not blast. However, the blasting probably could con- tinue on th& Cumberland land. City oflWarwick v. Del Bonis Sand & Gravel Co., 209 A.2d 22 7 (1965).