Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/02/2006

Home

January 25, 2006 -- Page 5 Nonconforming Use ~ Property owner bases appeal on court's failure to hear admlnistrator~s testimony Claims use became legally nonconforming under prior zoning ordinance Citation: Jefferson Township v. 7~ser, Court of Appeals of Michigan, No. 256426 (2005) MICHIGAN (I 2/06/05) -- lefferson Township cited 'riser for operating an auto repair and body shop on his property,' which was zoned only for a~m-icultural use. The township claimed that there were numerous unlicensed vehicles on the property that violated the bli~at provision of the ordinance, and that Tiser was storing various materials in vehicles within the required 30-foot side-yard setback. Tiser refused to remove the offending property. The township sued, and the court ruled in its favor. During the trial, the court refused to hear testimony from Hart, a zoning administrator, regarding the township's 1987 zoning ordinance. Tiser wanted to present Hart's testimony to support his position that his use complied with the 1987 ordinance's 20-foot setback, and thus remained a legal nonconfonming use upon the enactment of the 30-foot setback contained in the 2002 zoning ordinance. Tiser appealed, arguing that the court erred by not hearing Hart's testi- mony. DECISION: Affirmed. Hart's testimony regarding the 1987 zoning ordinance was irrelevant. Relevant evidence was evidence that had the tendency to make the exist- ence of any fact of consequence more or less probable than it would have been without the evidence. The evidence showed that Tiser stored items on his property in an unlawful mamaer. Tiser admitted to storing numerous unlicensed vekicles and junk on the property. The storage of blight was prohibited by the township zoning ordinance, and constituted a "nuisance per se." Regardless of whether it was stored in compliance with the 20-foot setback requirement or the 30-foot setback require- ment, the storage of blight was still illegal. In addition, even if the stored items were not blight, testimony and photo- ~aphic evidence showed that they were stored in violation of both setback requirements. Because a nonconforming use had to be lawful, the lower court did not abuse its discretion when it refused to hear Hart's testimony. see also: Herald Co. v. Bay City, 614 N.W. 2d 873 (2000). see also: Nicholas v. Meridian Charter Township Board, 609 N.W. 2d 574 (2000). , - SLqn up fOE ElXews Aie s .qul lan com 2006 Culnlan PuDlist~ing Group. Any repro~u~on is pro~ibitert. For mom information please call (617) 542-0048. 135