Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/11/2004

Home

Z.B. February 10, 2004 -- Page 7 A nonconforming use was defined as a use that lawfully e;dsted prior to the enactment of a zoning ordinance, and which was maintained after the ef- fective date of the ordinance although it did not comply with the zoning re- strictions applicable to the district in which it was situated. It was clear any alleged nonconformity in use became conforming with the last change in the zoning ordinance because the V.F.W. was the lessor of the property. Citation: Morgan v. City of Wichita, Court of Appeals of Kansas, No. 89,925 (2003). see also: Triangle Fraternity v. City of Norman, 63 P. 3d ] (2002). see also: Cr~mbaker v. Hunt Midwest Mining [nc., 69 P. 3d 601 (2003). Nonconforming Use -- Hog farm ceases operation for seven years Farmer argues it remains prior nonconforming use MICHIGAN (12/09/03) --Padgert owned a 35-acre parcel of land on which he operated a hog farming operation for 13 years. In 1993, a diseased herd led Padgett to declare bankruptcy and to cease hog farming operations. In 1994, there was a change in the zoning ordinance; Padgett's land was rezoned from ag14cultural to residential. In 2000, another businessman assumed Padgett's mortgage and contracted to dispose of his industrial ice cream waste as feed for hogs. The new business relationship allowed Padgett to restart his hog farming operation. The county required Padgett to file a request for a special use permit for the hog farm because his property was no longer zoned for' such uses. The zoning commission denied his request. Padgett sued, and the court ruled in favor of the commission. Padgett appealed, arguing his hog.farming facility constituted a prior non- conforming use because it predated the zoning change. DECISION: Affirmed. The hog facility was not a prior nonconforming use. [n 1993, before the zoning was changed, Padgett discontinued his hog farm- ing operations. Specifically, Padgett went banka~pt in 1993, lost his business, and ceased hog farming. This lasted for seven years. No evidence indicated Padgett intended to reestablish his hog farming operations during that time. Because the facility was not a pr/or nonconforming use, a special permit was required. There was competent, material, and sufficient evidence support- ing the commission's decision to deny the permit. Citation: ?adgert v. Mason County Zoning Commission, Co~rt of Appeals of ~!/lichigan, Nos. 236458 & 236459 (2003). ,s'ee (.tlso: Steff'en,v v. Keeter, 503 iV. W. ld 67.5 (1993). .,:ee ~d.~'o: l~elvidere Tow~xhip v. ~ei~ze. dl5 :V. W. 2d 250 (2000). 121