Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/02/1997

Home

, .. , ,- Page 6 - October 25, 1997 Z.B. In 1988, the state highway division passed a regulation stating that any salvage yard licensed before 1988 could continue to be operated and maintained according to the statutes and regulations in effect at the time the yard was first licensed. In 1992, Smith sold the salvage yard to Poole. Smith used the property as a salvage yard continuously from 1980 until he sold the property, and Poole operated the property in the same manner. Poole applied to tRe county planning commission for a permit to run the salvage yard, as required by the. ordinance. The commission denied his application because the salvage yard didn't comply with all the county's land use laws. Poole appealed to court. He claimed he didn't need a county permit because he was entitled to operate the salvage yard under the highway division's "grandfather" clause. According to Poole, the change in the salvage yard's ownership didn't end the property's lawful, nonconforming status. Poole said he didn't want to expand the salvage operations or extend the land upon which the yard was operated, he just wanted to operate the yard the same as before. The planning commission claimed the grandfather exception was for the benefit of Smith only, who owned the salvage yard when the permit requirement was adopted. It claimed the subsequent sale of the yard to Poole terminated the lawful, nonconforming status of the property and subjected Poole to the permit requirement. The. court awarded the commission judgment without a trial, finding that the gr~ndfather exception wasn't meant to create a continuing, protected, nonconforming use that ran with the land. DECISION: Reversed and returned to the trial court. Neither the commission nor Poole was entitled to judgment without a trial. Poole was exempt from the county's permit requirement under the grandfather clause, but questions existed as to whether he expanded the salvage yard after he bought it. The change of the salvage yard's ownership after the ordinance was passed did not terminate the property's legal preexisting and nonconforming status, so Poole was exempt from the county permit requirement. The use of the property remained the same before and after the ordinance was passed. There was no interruption or abandonment of the property's use as a salvage yard. Moreover, the highway division's regulations specifically stated any salvage yard that was licensed before 1988 could continue to operate according to the statues and regulations in effect at the time it was first licensed. However, Poole was not entitled to judgment without a trial because factual questions stilI existed about whether Poole expanded or altered the yard after he bought it. Although Poole claimed he had not expanded the operations of the salvage yard or extended the land upon which the yard was operated, the record was less than certain on that point, and the trial court made no findings on the issue. Under the grandfather exemption, Poole's nonconforming use 3'G