Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/01/1997

Home

.... Z.B. June 25, 1997 - Page 7 if the use became "illegal, a nuisance, or a hazard to the public's safety, health, and welfare." According to the zoning administrator, operating an auto repair shop without an occupational license violated the law and terminated the nonconforming use. When Dempsey bought the land, the zoning administrator said, the nonconforming-use status had already terminated and couldn't be revived. At a hearing, the previous owner testified he never received any court orders or notices telling him to stop operating a business at the location. The Board of Adjustment affirmed the zoning administrator's decision. Dempsey appealed to court, which also affirmed. Dempsey appealed again. DECISION: Reversed. When Dempsey bought the property, the nonconforming-use status remained intact and was not extinguished by the previous owner's failure to get an occupational license. The nonconforming use was a constitutionally protected property right, and the city could not take it away without notice. There was no evidence the city ever gave the previous owner this notice. The city wanted to take away the nonconforming-use status as a penalty for failing to purchase an occupational license. This penalty was so disproportionate to the violation - failure to comply with a revenue-producing ordinance - that it was void. see also: City of Middlesboro Planning Commission v. Howard, Ky., 551 S. W:2d 556 (1977). Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365, 47 S.Ct. 114, 71 L.Ed. 303 (1926). Environmental Issues - Resident claims city ignored neighbor's potential landslide problem lebousek v. City of Newport, 935 P.2d 452 (Oregon) 1997 Across the street from Jebousek's home in Newport, Ore., a neighbor planned to build a residential development on its property. Without discussion, the Land Use Board of Appeals approved a lot-line adjustment to facilitate the development's construction. Jebousek sued the city, asking a court to review the board's decision. She said the city failed to address environmental concerns she raised at various levels of the decision-making process. According to Jebousek, the property across the street had a dramatic drop, so any development would increase the threat of landslides. Jebousek said the city ignored two specific environmental standards it was supposed to consider before approving the lot-line adjustment. According to the first standard, the city had to require developers to minimize damage to coastal zone resources resulting from development on "environmentally hazardous" areas. The other standard dictated that a geologist or engineer had to investigate any site that might pose an environmental problem if developed., 1.3