Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/05/2002

Home

i i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Z.B. Auousr 25. '~00o --Page 7 ordinance requiring protective screening between commercial and residential -areas. A number of acceptable scr~,. ,nm= options were mentioned, including foliage and skrabbery. The zoning administrator also demanded the rear property, line "be brought into full compliance with the statute within 60 days of receipt of the letter." He later testified he inspected the properw 60 days alker receipt of the letter and found the property was not in compliance.. The assistant zoning administrator testified that he met with the lessee and discussed a vegetation plan. However, after a~eemg to plant 72 plants to brmg the property into compliance, ir was determined 49 of the installed plants were missing and had not been replaced. The county sued, se,,kin= an order for the owner and lessee to comply with the ordinance. The lower court denied the-petition, fmding the ordinance was vague, indefinite, and unenforceable, and the action was time barred. The lower court deten:mned that estoppel and laches barred the action. The county appealed. DECISION: Reversed and remanded. The county could proceed with its claims. The relief sought was a request for an injunction, or order. Here, the breach of the ordinance was a continuing breach of the landowner and lessee's duty,' to remain in compliance. Thus, the action was not time-barred, nor did laches or estoppel bar the action. The ordinance was passed as a means of protecting the residential commu- nities located near commercial areas. The court found nothing vague or indefi- nite about the ordinance. Citation: Richland County v. Kaiser, Court of Appeals of South Carolina, No..0504 (2002). see ah'o: 'Silues'ter V. Spring Valle~ 'counrw Club, 543 S.~.~d 560 (200J). Nonconforming Use -- Buildings used for storage and commercial moving for 70 years New owner establishes lighting design bhainesa NEW YORK (07/01/02) --In 1997,.P.M.S. Assets (PMS) acquired the parcel that was improved with two. buildings. For more than 70 years, the buildings were used for storage and commercial moving operations. The smaller of the two buildings was used as offices. TNs use predated a zoning ordinance that designated the area as a single-family zoning dismcz.. Thus, the continued use of the property and buildings as a moving and storage facilirv was noncon- forrmng use. The owner estabiished a lighting design and installation business on the site. and, !ike previous owners, maintained its of~qces in the smaller building. The owner used d~e larger buildin,z~o store equipment, inventory, and supplies. Afmr a number ,of neighborhood.-complaints, the Zoning board of appeals t03