Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/29/2002

Home

July 25, 2002 -- Page 7 Since then, SPCA added holding pens and a gavel pad measuring about 45 feet by 50 feet. The animals were not held in the pens, as .they were used as a temporary holding area. On June 22, 2000, after becoming aware of the holding pens, the cityfiled a verified complaint against SPCA, alleging the ·pens, and pads violated the zoning ordinance. The trial court found for the city and ~anted. a temporary. and permanent order. The court also determined the SPCA had expanded the nonconforming use beyond the one building that was in existence at the time the zoning ordinance passed. Thus, the court concluded, the SPCA was in violation of the zoning ordinance. SPCA appealed. · DECISION: Affirmed. The holding pens and pad occupied a larger, area of the land than Was occu- pied at the time of the zoning ordinance's enactment. The court also noted the SPCA actually moved the animal shelter to another location on the lot after the holding pens and pad were cgnstructed and thus violated the ordinance.. Citation: Society for Prevention of Cruelty t0 Animals v. City of Muncie, Court of Appeals of Indiana, 2nd Dist., No: i 8AO2oO2Oi-'CV-30 (2002).. see also: Berkley v. Kosciusko Co,tory Board Of Zoning Appeals, 607 N.E. 2d 730 (1993). see also: Stuckman v. Kosciusko County Board of Zoning appeals, 506 N.£.2d 1079 (1987). ,,Nonconforming Use -- Property owners are paid by dealers., to store cars State argued use was illegal because no license for salvage operation OHIO (06/11/02) -- In August 1993, the VOlberts purchased a parceI of land in Jackson Township, Since 1994, they stored automobiles on the property~ which were later moved to another location' and crushed. The Volberts also derived revenue from local used car dealers who stored automobiles there. The Volberts owned another property where they conducted a licensed au- tomobile salvage operation. These facilities were separate operations. Any :of the automobiles ultimately used for parts were moved to the licensed location for salvage. In 1997, the township enacted a zoning resolution restricting the land within the township to residential use only. In 2001, the Volberts were notified they violated the statute because they willfully allowed open storage of jUnk motor vehicles for more than 10 days. The Volberts answered With a plea of not guilty, The lower court found for the VolbertS, deciding their use of the property served a "commercial purpose';;~and constituted a valid nonconforming use. The state appealed. The state argued the Volberts' use of the property was illegal because they did not have a license to operate the salvage operation at that location. The state further contended, since the use was not legal, it w4s not exempt as a Valid nonconforming use. 123