Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/01/2004

Home

88 Page 4 -- Febru~, 25, 2004 In 1997, Ricker was sent a notice of violation from ihe city sign admini- strator stating the billboard exceeded the max_imum height allowed under zon- ing ordinances enacted in 1995. The billboard exceeded the maximum height allowed, 40 feet, by less than 4 feet. Ricker sued. The court found the billboard was a nonconforming sign un- der the I990 version of the ordinance, the 1990 ordinance incorporated the sign regulations of the 1977 version, and the billboard conformed to the 1.977 ordinance. Under the 1977 ordinance, any sign would be considered conform- lng if it exceeded the height maximum by 10 percent or less. Since R/cker's billboard was within this limit, the court ruled Ricker did not have to remove it. The city appealed, claiming the-court was interpreting the sign ordinance incorrectly. DE CISION: Affirmed. Ricker did not have to remove the billboard. Under the 1977 ordinance, Ricker's billboard could exceed the height limi- tations by 10 percent or less. Under this ordinance, the billboard was conforming. In 1990, the ordinance was changed to require conforming billboards to be brought within 40 feet or removed within seven years. But in 1995, another ordinance stated signs that conformed with the 1977 regulations as of August 1990 were allowed to remain. Several subsequent changes in the ordinance retained similar language. Although the city argued the 1977 sign regulations could only apply to signs in e,'dstence in 1977, it was clear by the language of later ordinances that this was not the case. In fact, subsequent ordinances specifically mentioned the 1977 ordinance. it was the clear intent of the legislative body to determine conformity or nonconformity of a sign based on the 1977 standards as of 1990. Pdcker's sign. was within the 10 percent variation allowed by the 1977 standards and was erected prior to 1990. Thus, the sign was in compliance with city regulations even if it did not conform with the provisions of later ordinances. Citation: Ric,~er v. The Zoning Board of Adjustment of the City of Asheville, Court of Appeals of North Carolina, No. COA02-1505 (2003). see also: Morris Communications Corporation v. CiO; of A~heville, 565 $?.2d 70 (2002). see also: T~cker v. Mecklenburg Count. Zoning Board of Adjusrm. enr, 557 S.f. 2d 631 (2001). Accessory Use -- Twenty-car collection parked on property Property within residential distm'ct, neighbors comlJlahz )H_,ASKA (01/02/04) ~ Dykstra owned a four-plex in a neighborhood zoned as a multi-family residential district. Dykstra collected cars as a hobby and regularly kept 20 or more on his property and in the adjoining right of way. His car collection ,,vas a source of tension between Dykstra and his neighbors for several years.