Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/02/2003

Home

Page 2 --December i0, 2002 Nonconforming Use -- Auto salvage yard ordered to erect fence around property Owner contests that township laws trump state law OI-tlO (11/13/02) --Walt'S Auto, inc. (Walt,s) had operated an auto salvage yard for many years. In 1994, the licensing board sent notice to Walt's reqmr- ing it to screen the business from the view of U.S. Route 68. This was a state W ' law,.and alt s contended the township zoning laws had no such requirement. Walt's did not comply with the £~st notice or the notice that'followed. Walt's demanded a hearing, which was held on April 12-, 1995. The board determined that Walt's was. in violation of the local starute and demanded, the problem be remedied by October 1995 under the threat of Iosing its license. Walt's appealed to the County Court of Common Pleas, contending there was no requirement to erect the'fence because the property was located in an industrial area. g/alt's also argued the salvage yard predated the. zoning.regula- tion and was a legal nonconforming use. The court afl'm-ned the decision of the-board. Walt's was again required to either erect a fence or living hedge around the property adjoining the highway or lose Iris license. Walt appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. Nonconforming uses were ordinarily allowed on the principle that prop- erty owners could not be deprived of a substantial investment that existed prior to the enactment of a zoning resolution. However, local governments could prohibit the expansion or substantial alteration of a. nonconforming use and could regulate nonconforming uses to the point that they "wither[ed] and die[d].." The fact that Waif's could continue operating did not mean it was free from regulation. Moreover, the board was free to adopt more sthngent fencing re- quirements for salvage yards even though.there was no such township zoning regulation. Citation: Walt's Auto, [nc., v. Ohio Motor Vehicles Salvage Dealers Licer~ing Board, Court. of Appeals of Ohio, 2nd App. Dist., Clark County, 3[o. 2002 CA 32 (2002). see also: Beck v. Springfield Tbwnship Board of Zoning ApPeals, 624 N.E. 2d 286 (1993). 34 Rezoning- Landfill asks to rezone adjacent property. Court overturns zoning board's decision OHIO (11/04/02) -- Clarke was'the owner of an. 81-acre property zoned R1, rural residential. He purchased the property in 1985, and, since then, leased it for agricultural use. Browning-Ferris Industries (BFI) owned the adjacent 51.-acre parcel of land, which was situated between the Clarke property and the Bigfoot Run I sanitary