Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/05/2002

Home

October 25, 2002 -- Page 5 amended the: complaint, adding the county as a. defendant. : The complaint al- leged Chestnut Mountain developed and operated the Far Side area in viola- tion of the county ordinance and also asked the court to.prohibit further devel- opment and operation of the area. Specifically, Fisher contended Chestnut Mountain maintained six noncon- forming uses at the time the ordinance was enacted, including the chairlift, floodhghts, underground electric cable, water-main infraStructure, and the ski slope itself. It alleged the ordinance provided such "continued" nonconforming uses were not to be expanded. The complaint also raised issues of breach of covenant, contempt, nuisance, and trespass. Chestnut-Mountain asked the court for judgment without a thal and to dismiss the complaint. The court agreed with Chestnut Mountain, and Fisher appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. The court's decision was affLrmed. The ordinance in question provided nonconforming uses could not be changed to uses other than those permitted in the district; there was no provision prohibiting the expansion of all noncon- forming uses. The ordinance further provided all "special uses" required a supplemental special use permit before they could be expanded, which distin- guished special' uses from nonconforming uses. The county could have imposed similar restrictions on nonconforming uses, but chose not to do so. The court refused to f'md such a restriction on its own, as Fisher sought, and instead noted zoning ordinances were to be interpreted in the same manner as statutes, and courts had to give effect to the drafters' intent and the plain language of the statute. In the absence of a specific restriction on the expansion of nonconforming uses, Chestnut Mountain's expansion was not prohibited, and the court did not err when it granted Chestnut Mountain's request for judgment without thai. Citation: Fisher v. Burstein, ApPellate Court of lllinois, 2nd Dist., No. 2~01- 0661 (2002) see also: Monah'an v. Village of Hinsdale, 569 N.E. 2d 1182 (1991). see also: Knolls Condominium Association v. HarTnsi 759 N.E. 2d 985 (.2001).' Nonconforming Use t Business competitor opposes: owner's application seeking citY's approval for nonconforming uses Property had been service station and garage ALASKA-(09/20/02) t Stewart was the president of COB Inc., which had owned property in the City of Homer since 1982. The property:was used as a service station andgarage.before COB bought it, and COB. continued this use until 199:1, when the gas tanks were removed. The property was located in a central business district. The city did' not allow automobile repair establishments in. its central business district unless such uses were "grandfathered" in. In order to satisfy the requirements for the town's grandfather provision, businesses had to have used the property for car 25