Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/02/1995

Home

Page 4 -- April 1995 Z.B. Whether or not Villari intended to cease pig farming, he lost his noncon- forming use by failing to use his property as'a pig farm for such a long time. The state Right to Farm Act did not override the township's power to regulate land use. Villari suspended his nonconformifig use for a significant time without a strong reason. Villari stopped pig .fa. rm!ng for at least seven years, based only on "market conditions." Therefore; u. nder New Jersey law, he lost his right to the nonconforming use regardless of whether he intended to abandon it. The Right to Farm Act did not override the town's ordinance forbidding pig farming on properties smaller than 50 acres in Villari's zone. The act pro- tected commercial farms from nuisance actions, it did not override municipal authority to zone property within its boundaries. Palatine I v. Planning Board of Townshil~ of Montville, 628 A.2d 321 (1993). Carnara v. Board of Adjustrnents of Townshi£ of BeIleville, 570 A.2d 1012 (]990). Nonconforming Use -- County Waits More Than a Year to Prosecute Violation Johnson v. DeKalb County, 449 S.E.2d 3H (Georgia) 1994 Johnson owned property in DeKalb County, Ga. He had a building on his property that became a nonconforming structure when the county amended its zoning ordinance. Under the ordinance's grandfather clause, Johnson's build- ing was considered a legal nonconforming use. Some time after the zoning law change, Johnson built an addition to the nonconforming structure. More than a year after the county found out about the addition, it prosecuted Johnson for maintaining a nonconforming structure. After a trial, the Recorder's Court of DeKalb County found Johnson not guilty of that offense because the county had not prosecuted Johnson within a year, as required by the zoning ordinance. The county appealed to the Superior Court, arguing the limitations period had not expired because a county ordinance stated that each violation would be a separate offense. After the Recorder's Court made ':additional findings, the Superior Court reversed its judgment. Because Johnson's nonconforming use was continuing, the court found the county's case was not time-barred. In other words, a new, year-long limitations period began each day Johnson had a non- conforming structure on his property. The Superior Court returned the case to the Recorder's Court for an order to this'effect. Johnson appealed. ~ DECISION: Affirmed,' in favor of the county. The limitations period had not run out. A new limitations period started each day Johnson had a nonconformin~ structure on his property. Johnson did not challenge the ordinance, which clearly stated that each day a violation ex- isted constituted a separate offense. His challenge to the county's application