Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/02/2003

Home

September 10, 2003 -- Page 7 In March 2001, the village advised Painter he was not in compliance with the zoning code since the home continued to be unoccupied. F3nall7, the village notified Painter the home was unlawfully being stored on the property. The village then went to court to enforce the code against Painter; however, the thai court overruled the case .and decided Painter.main- tained' a lawful pre-ex/sting nonconforming use. The village appealed, claiming Painter voluntarily discontinued' or aban- doned the pre-e,,cisting nonconforming use of his mobile home on the property. DECISION: Affirmed. The use was not abandoned. The village retained the burden of showing Painter had voluntarily discon- tinued or abandoned the nonconforming use. Painter admitted he had not occupied or rented the home as a dwelling for more than two years. However, Painter never declared an intention to abandon the use of the mobile home. He noted the considerable repairs to the plumbing and other parts of the structure he had completed. Further, he testified he vis- ired the home weekly to do ordinary maintenance and paid property, taxes. Citation: Village of New Richmond v. Painter, Cour; of Appeals of Ohio, 12th App. Dist., Claremonr Co., No. CA2002-10-080 (2003). see also: Board of Trustees o]~' Williamsburg Township v. Kreimer, 595 N.£.2d 945 (1992). Conditional Use Permit --: Gravel pit permit denied after residents voiced concerns Around the same time, another gravel mine is approved MINNESOTA (7/3/03) -- The Magones owned an 80-acre parcel of land, lo- cated in an A-1 zoning district (used for interim agwiculture and commercial food production). In August 1998, the Magones and Rumpca Excavating Inc. applied for a conditional use permit to operate a gavel mine on the subject property. The Planning Commission referred the matter to the county for an environmental assessment worksheet ("EAW"). The EAW was completed in 2000 and found no anticipated "adverse impacts and issues" related to the proposed mine. Six government agencies were asked to comment on the project, and, while some opined that there would be no significant problems, two agencies re- ported their concerns of the inadequacy of the EAW report. The EAW was revised, and the county board of supervisors reviewed it and concluded:the report was adequate. The board also decided no environment- impact statement was required. The township board conducted hearings, during which township residents voiced their opposition to the project. One resident offered a report of property values of residences near another Rumpca site showing a serious depreciation. However, another study showed that five of nine lots in that area had actually increased in value. 113