Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/05/2002

Home

102 Pa~_e 6 -- August 25, 2002 Z.B. sign was placed at the current location prior to the enactment of a city zoning ordinance that prohibited signs [n die district. Thus, the sign remained on the building as a lawful nonconforming use. In 1997, the sign was damaged as a result of a traffic accident, and Lamer replaced the wooden frame with a metal one. The repairs did not result in a larger sign or a different location. In April I998, die zoning inspector .served Lamar with notice of a zoning violation. The notice advised Lamer dee repairs consritumd an alteration of nonconforming use in conflict with use Iimitar. ions of die historic district. Lamer was required to either obtain a certificate of appropriateness or remove the sign prior to May 6, i998. The notice also gave Lamar die option of appealing within ~ days. Lamer did not appeal, and the city sent two more notices, althoug_h no don was taken to reno ye the sign. Lamer applied to the Landmarks Commission for both minor and major certificates of appropriateness. Both applications were denied? and Lamer ap- pealed to the Board of Zoning Appeals. The board afl'tamed the commission's decision because Lamer failed to appeal the original violation within 30 days and failed to exJaaust administrative remedies. Lamer appealed, and the lo'wet court affirmed the decisions of die commis- sion and the board. Lamer appealed again. DECISION: Reversed and remanded. The zoning inspector did not have authority to set time constraints on Lamar's compliance with the .notice of violation. The court also 2oted Lamer was in compliance when ir applied m the Landmarks Commission and negotia- tions between the cky and Lamer had. continued for about one year after die original notice of violation was issued. The court remanded die case back to die Board of Zoning .Appeals to ad- dress Lamar's appeal of die commission's denial of the major and minor tifica~es of appropriateness. Citation: iamar Outdoor Advertising v. City. of Day,on Board of Zoning Aflpecds, Court o/Appeals o/Ohio, 2nd App. DiSt., Montgomery CO., .NO. 18902 (2002). see also: Grave v. ?afL'man Twp., 653 N.~.2d 226 (]995). Screening Requirement ~ Loch1 ordinance requires prvtecfive screening between commercial and residential areas Owners argue ordinance too vague to be enforceable SOUTH C,~OLINA (07/15/02) - Kmser owned property, which he leased to a truck and bae~ center. Kaiser leased the prope~ to compames with ~e a~eement the lessee would be required ~o abide by applicable ordinances and regulations. In May i996, r. he ,~,icbHand County zoning administrator sent notice ro the owner and ie.sse~ demanding ~hey comply with an ar:icie of the local zoning I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I