Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/01/2005

Home

Page 4-- November 10, 2005 Z.B. the appropriate agencies. These plans assured that all water mn-off' was con- rained, and no pollutants entered the river. The board also carefully considered the size and color of the house and its potential irhpact on the surrounding environment. The board rejected the origi- nal house plan, requiring the house to be smallerand farther from the river. The house was comparable in size to neighboring l~ouses and less than the maxi- mum allowable height. A deed restriction prevented later expansion of the house. Additionally; the house color had to'be approved to ensure it was a suitable earth tone to minimize its visual impact. The board required a vegetation maintenance plan with native grasses and shrubs, which served to preserve the flyer's natural character/stics, stab/lize the ground, and mitigate erosion. Finally, it required Rosso to care for existing trees andvegetations, and to provide screening to make the house visually incon- spicuous, including five years of monitoring to ensure the screening was effective. Ultimately, it was clear the board considered the purposes of the zoning ordinance when granting its approval. see also: Ziervogel v. Washington County Board of Adjustment, 676 N. W. 2d 401 (2004). see also: Spinner v. Kenosha County Board of Adjusrment, 588 X W. 2d 662 (1998). Nonconforming Use -- Landowner stores junk on property Unaware of where it comes from Citation: State v. Teachout, Court of Appeals of Ohio, li th Appellate District, TrumbulI County, No. 2004-T-0129 (2005) OHIO (09/23/05) --Teachout owned property in Johnston Township, Ohio. A criminal complaint was filed against, him, alleging that he had violated the zon- ing code by storing miscellaneous items on his property, These items included abandoned or wrecked automobkles, old trailers, Unused farm equipment, dis- carded tires, .cinder blocks, and other refuse. The state sued, arguing Teachout had no fight, to allow the refuse to remain on his property. Teachout argued that he had used the property as a storage space and for farm equipment sales for five years before the enactment of the zoning ordinance, and, as such, had created a gandfathered nonconforming use. The court ruled in the state's favor. Teachout appealed, arguing his property was operating 'under a noncon- forming use. DECISION: Affirmed. Teachout failed to establish a lawful nonconforming use for storage and farm equipment sales. Teachout's testimony demonstrated that various exposed items on his prop- erty were being used for the original purpose of storage and farm equipment sales. However, the majority of the items merely were abandoned on Teachout's © 2005 Quinlan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048. 62