Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/05/1995

Home

Z.B. August 15, 1995 --Page 5 the other~parts of an airport, based only on where and when the activities hap- pened to :occur. The County appealed the portion of the court's decision which permitted parking aircraft for up to 48 hours on lot 603. DECISION: Affirmed in part and returned to th~ lower court. The lower court properly found a continuing nonconforming use on lot 603 onlyl However, the lower court should not have allowed Gay to park airplanes for 48 hours on lot 603. There'. was prior and continuing use of the airstrip on lot 603, so Gay was permitted to continue that use. The county was entitled to an order preventing Gay from using the other lots for airport uses because there had not been prior and continuing airport uses on them. The lower court properly treated the three lots as three separate entities. The lots were not continuously used as a whole. They were owned by different people who used them for v'arious purposes. It may have been illogical to find only the airstrip a nonconforming use, but only those uses which preexisted m and continued after- the restrictive zoning were nonconforming uses that could continue. The lower court should not have allowed Gay to park aircraft on lot 603 for up to 48 hours. Gay did not prove an established nonconforming use relating to parking aircraft for 48 hours on lot 603. The case was returned to the trial court to delete the 48-hour parking provision from its judgment. Polk County v. Martin, 636 P. 2d 952 (I981). Hendgen v. Clackamas County, 836 P.2d 1369 (1992). Subdivision -- Town Approves Subdivision Without Notice to Neighbor Taylor V. Duke, 896 & W. 2d 618 (Kentucky) 1995 Taylor lived on a 4,500-square-foot lot he owned in a residential zone in Morgantown, Ky. At a town Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, Taylor's neighbor filed a plan to subdivide her lot into two 6,048-square-foot lots. The resulting lots had about 1,952 square feet less than the 8,000 square feet the town zoning ordinance required. Under the ordinance, Taylor's neighbor should have sub- mitted her plans to the commission 10 days before the meeting. Also, the com- mission should have given Taylor at least five days' notice of a hearing on the subdivision', applications. Nevertheless, the commission approVed the applica- tion that day. After the commission approved the subdivision, Taylor's neighbor sold the lots to Duke. On Nov. 30, 1992 and April 30, 1993, Duke got permits to build a house on each lot. The first house was built without Taylor's objection. How- ever, when tie saw a second house being built, he contacted an attorney. Accord- ing to Taylor, this was the first notice he had regarding the subdivision applica- tion and ap~rovaI.