Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/05/2006

Home

Page 4 -.:... September 10, 2006 Z.B, ( that the s~nsitive uses were separated from the proposed location by a high- way; and'3) testimony that other cities used the old method for calculating distances between sensitive uses and that the mayor opposed the operation of adult businesses in the city unilaterally,.However, the court found substantial evidence'that the city enacted the.urgency ordinances to correct a mistak.e, and it upheld the city council's decision. The city used the property line to property line method to determine dis- tances between other regulated businesses (such as liquor stores) and had used that method until1999 when the lengthy ordinance requiring adult busi- nesses to obtain pennits was introduced. The court also found that the city had actually expanded the opportunity for adult businesses to operate in the City by creating the allowable overlap with manufacturing zones. see also: Stolman v. City of Los Angeles, 114 Cal.AppAth 916 (2003). Nonconforming Use - Neighbor claims nonconforming use abandoned when no livestock kept for more than a year Property owner argues intention to keep livestock enough for use to survive Citation: Rogers v. West Valley City, Court of Appeals of Utah, No. 20050111- CA (2006) UTAH (07/20/06) - In 1958, Kirby acquired property in West Valley City. Kirby kept horses on the property continuously through 2000. From 2001 to 2002, she kept horses on the property, although not continuously, for significant periods of time. During 2003 and 2004, no horses or other livestock were kept on the premises. In 2004, Kirby filed an application with the city's board of adjustment seeking a nonconforming use determination to allow her to continue to keep livestock on the property. Rogers owned a 42-unit apartment complex abutting Kirby's property. Ro.gers ' objected to the nonconforming use determination, agruing that, under the zon- ing code, any nonconforming use that had ceased for a period of one year was considered abandoned. ' At the hearing, Kirby presented 24 statements from owners and prior own- ers of surrounding properties supporting her claim that horses had been kept on the property since the late 1960s or early 1970s. Kirby also testified that the reason why no horses were kept on the property during 2003 and 2004 was due to Rogers' removal of a section of fence to cut down some trees, and his failure to replace the fence. Kirby also testified that she always intended to keep horses and livestock on the property. The board voted to approve Kirby's nonconforming use, and Rogers ap- pealed. The trial court affmned the, board's decision. Rogers appealed. DECISION: Reversed and returned to lower court for further proceedings. c 80 @ 2006 Quinlan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048.