Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning Bulletin January 10, 2014 I Volume 8 ( Issue 1 <br />to effect an arbitrary result. The court found that § 1280.05 did not <br />distinguish "abandonment" or "discontinuance" for any type of noncon- <br />forming use other than relative to mobile homes. Only in cases of the <br />absence or removal of mobile homes from portions of property did the <br />ordinance extinguish the nonconforming use of the property on a piece- <br />meal basis. Accordingly, while all other property owners and businesses <br />in the Village had to voluntarily abandon the nonconfouuing use of the <br />property, mobile home parks alone could be forced into involuntary <br />abandonment simply by removing a mobile home (i.e., a structure that is <br />designed to be moved) from a lot, noted the court. Under the Village's in- <br />terpretation of § 1280.05, the absence of a mobile home on a lot consti- <br />tutes abandonment of the lot and, therefore, discontinuance of the <br />nonconforming use. The Village had applied that logic to refuse to provide <br />utilities to those "abandoned" lots. Thus, found the court, § 1280.05 al- <br />lowed the Village "to arbitrarily slowly extinguish nonconforming uses <br />that the [V]illage finds distasteful despite the express provision in [§ ] <br />1280.01 which allows for the continuation of lawful, nonconforming <br />uses. <br />,, <br />See also: City of Akron v. Chapman,160 Ohio St. 382, 52 Ohio Op. <br />242, 116 N.E.2d 697, 42 A.L.R.2d 1140 (1953). <br />See also: Bell v. Rocky River Bd. of Zoning Appeals,122 Ohio App. 3d <br />672, 702 N.E.2d 910 (8th Dist. Cuyahoga County 1997). <br />Preemption —Township says its <br />subdivision and land development <br />ordinance applies to proposed <br />county roads <br />County contends County Road Law preempts <br />township ordinance <br />Citation: In re Commissioners of Carbon County, 2013 WL 6037103 <br />(Pa. Commw. Ct. 2013) <br />PENNSYLVANIA (11/15/13)—This case addressed the issue of <br />whether a County Road Law preempted a township's subdivision and <br />land development ordinance. <br />The Background/Facts: Carbon County (the "County") sought to <br />develop a 70-acre vacant parcel of land that was located, principally, in <br />Mahoning Township (the "Township"). The County hoped to turn that <br />parcel into a business park. To that end, the County proposed two roads to <br />serve that development. First, the County proposed to move a 150-foot <br />portion of a Township road, Packerton Hollow Lane, and make it a County <br />2014 Thomson Reuters 7 <br />