Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/04/2006

Home

March 25, 2006 -- Page 7 July 1995, when Perry fa'st opened his business, the May 1998 citation was still within the three-year prescriptive period. Moreover, the commencement of the administrative proceeding by service of the citation was an "action" to require compliance with land use ordinances, and prescription was thus interrupted at that time. see also: Parish of Jefferson v. Jacobs, 623 So.2d 137I. Nonconforming Use -- Board orders quarry owner to obtain permit Amendment to ordinance changed status to conditional use Citation: Kraemer v. Pierce County Board of Adjustment, Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District Three, No. 2004AP3383 (2006) WISCONSIN (02/07/06) -- Kraemer'owned land in Pierce County that he had used continuously for non-metallic mining, or quarrying, since 1957. In 1972, the county adopted zoning codes and, since it predated the codes, Kraemer's use of the property was established as a legal nonconforming use. In 1998, the county revised the zoning codes. As a result of the revision, .Kraemer's property now was in an agricultural district in which quarrying was permitted as a conditional use. The county's zoning administrator notified Kraemer in 2004 that, under the revised code, his nonconforming use status was no longer valid, and that he -z. had to obtain a conditional ust' permit to continue quarrying on his land. The zoning board a~eed, and Kraemer sued. The court reversed the board's deci- sion, and the board appealed. DECISION: Reversal of the board's decision affirmed. The central question in this case was whether the adoption of an ordinance that changed a legal nonconforming use to a conditional use voided the vested rights of the landowner. A legal nonconforming use was "an active and actual use of land and buildings which existed prior to the commencement of the zoning ordinance and which ha[d] continued in the same or related use until present." Thc court cited Des Jardin v. Town of Greenfield, in which the state supreme court noted that an existing nonconforming use could not be prohib- ited by new zoning regulations, and that regulations changing the stares of a nonconforming use could not be applied retroactively. It was undisputed that the mining on Kraemer's property predated the adop- tion of and amendments to the zoning ordinance. Furthermore, Kraemer had continuously used the land for quarrying, establishing vested interest fights. The board could not relinquish Kraemer's nonconforming use stares nor re- quire him to obtain a permit to continue quarrying on his land. see also: Des Jardin v. Town of Greenfield, 262 Wis. 43, 47-48, 53 N. W.2d 784 (1952). © 2006 Cuinlan Put~lishing Group. Any reproduction is pronitlited. For more information please ca{I (617) 542-0048. 51