Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/07/1997

Home

Page 4 - September 25, 1997 Z.B. The First Amendment would not allow a total ban on erotic materials with some arguably artistic value. The town did not set aside any area where adult bookstores could lawfully operate; its whole zoning scheme created an impermissible, total ban on the distribution of adult-oriented materials. Since the zoning and building occupancy violations were related to the invalid zoning scheme, the violations had to be reversed. see also: FW/PBS Inc. v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 110 S.Ct. 596, 107 L.Ed.2d 603 (1990). Young v. American Mini Theatres Inc., 427 U.S. 50, 96 S.Ct. 2440, 49 L.Ed.2d 310 (1976). Nonconforming Use - Developer sues to keep neighbor from using property as disposal site Foresight Inc. v. Babl, 565 N. l-Y.2d 279 (Wisconsin) 1997 Weston Disposal Inc. (Disposal) bought the "John Ryan Pit," a parcel once used as a sand and gravel mine, in the town of Weston, Wis. It planned to use the property as a disposal site for construction waste and demolition materials. Disposal's property was originally zoned agriculure/residence, but the city rezoned it to residential estate. Disposal got from the town a "Dumping Ground Permit," allowing it to dump and store certain materials on the property. Disposal began to dump construction materials at the site. In December 1992, the village of Rothschild annexed Disposal's property. The village zoned the parcel single-family residence. In 1995, Foresight Inc. bought property adjacent to the Ryan Pit. It wanted to develop the area, and it claimed Disposal's use of the property as a disposal site violated Rothchild's single-family zoning designation. Foresight sued Disposal, seeking a court order prohibiting Disposal from using the property in violation of the village's zoning ordinance. Disposal asked the court for judgment without a trial. It claimed its use of the property as a disposal site was a legal nonconforming use, citing its permit from Weston. For Disposal's use of the site to qualify as a legal nonconforming use, it had to be legal under the Weston zoning ordinance. Dumping and waste disposal were not identified as permitted or conditional uses in Weston's residential district. Disposal argued that because the Weston zoning ordinance didn't specifi- cally prohibit it from using its property as a disposal site, the use was allowed. Disposal also claimed its use of the site was legal based on the permit it got from Weston to dump certain materials on the property. The court awarded Disposal judgment without a trial, and Foresight appealed. DECISION: Reversed and returned to the trial court. Neither the permit nor the Weston zoning ordinance allowed Disposal 97 " .'.