Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/03/2005

Home

92 Page 6 -- December 24, 2004, A prior nonconforming use was established. A prior nonconforming use was a vested right in the use of particular prop- ,erty chat did not conform to zoning restrictions, but was protected because it lawfully existed before the zoning regulation was put into effectl The zoning restriction's enactment date was the critical point in determin- ing when a nonconforming use vested. Ail parties a~eed the earliest alleged ordinance was adopted in 1969. The court heard testimony that individuals had observed the easement since at'least 1938, and that the easement was used consistently every year since 1965. According to the testimony, the private road was regularly used to access Mullet Lake for well over 60 years.. Neighbors testified people used the roadway for boating, walking, swimming, sitting, or taking dogs to .the lake since 1930. Hart presented no evidence to the contrary. Since the neighbors' use was generally consistent with the prior use of.the roadway easement, the lower court was correct in finding the use of the easement predated the ordinance and created a nonconfornfing use. see also: CAM Construction v. Lake Edgewood Condo As~'ociation, 640 X W. 2d 256 (2002). see also: Higgins Lake Property Owners Association v. Gerrish Township, 662 N.W. 2d 387 (2003). Conditional Use -- Property owner wants to expand mining operation Claims permit conditions couM lessen detrimental effects Citation: Kipp v. Board of Zoning Appeals of Stonelick Township, Court of Appeals of Ohio, ] 2th App. Dist., Clermont Co£tnty, No. CA2003-10-086 (2004)' OHIO (11/08/04) -- IGpp owned a gravel mine in Stonelick Township. In 1999, IGpp acquired a 35~acre parcel adiacent to his property. He then applied for a conditional-use permit to expand his mining operation onto the new parcel.- After hearings on the issue, the Stonelick Township Board of Zoning peals denied the permit. It found it could not attach sufficient conditions to protect neighboring homes from noise, dust, or other detrimental effects the expanded mine could have created. Kipp sued, and the court ruled in favor of the [ownship. Kipp appealed, arguing the board's decision was not supported by sufficient evidence. DECISION: A ffirmed. The evidence supported the board's decision. Several of the neighboring property owners testified to the significant amounts of dust and noise caused by Kipp's current mining operation, They also expressed their concerns that the proposed expansion of the mine would generate even more dust and noise due to the fact that it would be even closer to their h~)me'~ rl~a~ the current mining operation. 2004 '2uintar~ ?ueiismng Group. Any reproduction ts promblted. For more [alormat~on please call [6i7) 542-0048.