Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/03/2005

Home

January 25, 2005 -- Page 3 Nuisance -- Property covered in abandoned and rustingjnnk- Owner claims items eonstitute non ¢°nforming use, not nuisance Citation: Ohio v. JenSon, Court of Appeals of Ohio, 3rd App. Dist., Paulding County, No. 11-04-08 (2004): OHIO (11/22/04) -- Jenson received a letter from the zoning inspector of Wash- ington Township notifying him of a viOlation of the new WashingtOn_Township Zoning Resolution. The inspector told Jenson the violation created a nuisance on his property. The reported nuisance resUlted' from Jenson having a number of aban- doned mobile homesand trailers,junk car.s, buses, tall vegetation, various piles of junk wood and bricks, and various cylind~er-like metal items on his property. Under the township zoning ~-egulatiOns, vegetation, garbage, refuse, or debris had to be abated or controlled: Jenson failed to abate the auisance. The state sued, and the court ruled in its favor. Jenson appealed, arguing his use of the property was a prior noncOnform- ing use predating the i~ew zoning regulations, not a 'nuisance. DECISION:Affirmed, The court concluded jenson's property use was a nuisance. Jenson argued that since he liad been the owner of the property for over 30 years, his use of the ~ PropertY ShOUld have been Considered a preeXisting~ nonconforming use..HoweVer, ,the court disagreed with this argument and de- termined that because JensOn's use of the property, had never been in compli- ance with any zoning iregulattons,~!t could not constitute a protected noncon- forming Use,..whether ,the curreat ~.r:egulations had been amended or not. The trial testimony revealed there. Were a, number'oftrailers or mobile homes on Jenson's property that were in a State of disrepair,, were not habitable, and, in fact, were not being lived in by anyone. lenson testified there were at least four "antique" cars on th~ property that were not operable. Further, photographs and neighbors' testimony showed there were various Piles of scrap metal,, bricks, wood, and high vegetation on the property. The evidence supported the determination that the items· on the property and condition of the property constituted a nuisance and 'presented a health hazard to children and animals due tO the presence of sharp glass and protrud- ing objects. Jenson's'use was never in harmony with any zoning regulation. see also: Pschesang V. Vdlage of Terrace Park, 448 N.E.2d 1164 (1983). see also: State v. ThomPkins, 678 N.E. 2d 541 (1997). VISIT OUR WEBSITE at Www. quinlan, com © 2005 Quinlan Publishirig GrO~Jp. Any. repr~uction is Prohibited. For more information please caJl (617) 542-0048. 93