Laserfiche WebLink
34 <br /> <br />Page 6 --November 10, 2002 <br /> <br />z,g. <br /> <br /> Nonconforming use-- Truck repair and recycling business predates zoning <br /> laws <br /> Owner asks for rezoning to industrial/manufacturing use <br /> OHIO (09/30/02) -- MOrrow began operating a track repair and tire recycling <br /> business in the village of Monroeville in 1972, one year before the zoning laws <br /> were adopted. Morrow was permitted to continue Ns business as a noncon- <br /> forming use under the new zoning ordnance. <br /> In February 1998, Morrow applied to the village planning commission to <br />rezone his property to "industr/al/manufacmr/ng." While this application was <br />pending; the village council adopted a zoning amendment, but'Morrow's prop- <br />erty was not 'affected. <br /> Later, Morrow's application was character/zed as a "nonconforming use <br />variance" to be considered by the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA). <br /> On Feb. 26, 2000, the BZA rejected Morrow's .application unanimously. <br />Morrow asked the court for a declaratory judgment stating the 1998 zoning <br />ordinance was void dUe to irregularities in its enactment. He also requested an <br />order for the village to conduct another hearing on his zoning appl/cation or <br />grant him a variance to extend his nonconforming use. <br /> The lower court found the zoning ordinance to be constitutional and noted <br />Morrow failed to submit evidence that he met conditions necessary for a zOn- <br />ing change. Further, the lower court found MorrOw failed to timely appeal the <br />denial of his variance. <br /> Morrow appealed. <br /> <br />DECISION: Affirmed. ~ <br /> The village properly denied the variance. <br /> The court noted the ordinance provided for extension of nonconforming <br />uses. A similar zoning ordinance in an earlier case was found to satisfy consti- <br />tutional requirements. Thus, the ordinance did provide the BZA with objective <br />standards to grant enlargement of nonconforming uses, and was not <br />unconstitutional. <br /> <br />Citation: Morrow v. Hllage Council of the V~llage of Monroeville, Court of <br />Appeals of Ohio, 6th App. Di,t., Huron County, No. H-01~051 (2002). <br /> <br />see also: Standard Oil Co. v. City of Warrensville Heights, 355 N.E. 2d 495 <br />(2002). <br /> <br />Due Process -- Applicant seeks off-track betting.approval <br />Township deniesj:or insufficient parking <br /> <br />PENNSYEVANIA (09/18/02) -- The Downs - Off Track Wagering Inc., leased. <br />land from Mikets Motors inc. w~th the condition that a zm~ng application be <br />approved for an off-track bet,.lng (OTB) establishment. The relevant statute. <br /> <br /> ! <br /> I <br /> I <br />! <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br /> <br />