Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/06/2003

Home

Z.B. January 25, 2003 -- Page 3 ,(' it had not voluntarily abandoned its use of the property, because it maintained the landfill and had a current Solid Waste License from the county health de- partment and the state EPA. It also filed an annual operational' report and the landfill was periodically inspected. Finally, Aluminum Smelting had to con- tinually monitor the groundwater quality and employed two full-time employ- ees for maintenance work. The zoning board of appeals denied the appeal. It found no dumping or disposal of wastehad taken place since 1993 and the site had been reactive for more than two years. The board also found Aluminum Smelting demonstrated voluntary abandonment by selling its manufacturing facilities. Aluminum Smelting sued, and the court ruled in its favor. The court found the township could not regulate .Aluminum Smelting's'use of the landfill. Denmark Township appealed, arguing Aluminum Smelting's use of the property to. store waste did not comply with the def'mition of "landfQl" in the zoning ordinance. Under the ordinance, "landfill" was. land used to dump or dispose of waste. DECISION: Reversed. Aluminum Smelting could only continue its current use. Denmark Township could not prevent Aluminum Smelting from maintain- ing a captive landffil. Aluminum Smelting could maintain and monitor the waste material previously deposited. The storage of previously deposited waste was an ancillary nonconforming use of disposing or dumping of such waste. However, Denmark Township could adopt reasonable zomng requirements preventing other, more' expansive, landfill uses. Citation: Aluminum Smelting & Refining Co: Inc. v. Denmark Township Zoning Board of Zoning Appeals, Court of Appeals of Ohio, llth App. Dist., Ashtabula County, No. 2001-A-0050 (2002). see also: SheffieM v. Rowland, 716 N.E. 2d 1121 (1999). see also: Payphone Association of Ohio v. Cleveland, 766 N.E. 2d 167 (2001). Nonconforming Use -- Landowner fails to-act on building permit MINNESOTA (12/10/02) -- In 1972., Ryan bought a tot in Wacouta Town- ship. The sale of the property was contingent on Ryan being able to construct a building on the lot with a reduced sideyard setback. Ryan requested and re- ceived a nonconforming use permit to build a 20-foot by 30-foot chalet-style house on the lot. By ordinance, the nonconforming use: penmt was to expire after one year of nonuse. Ryan did not build on the property between 1972 and 1983. In 1.984, Ryan requested a building permit to build a garage on the property. Wacouta and' the county granted the permit: The permit allowed Ryan to build l0 feet from the property line. In 2000, Ryan applied to Wacouta for a variance to build a dwelling set back eight feet from the property line, instead of the 15-foot sideyard setback then required. 121