Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/29/2002

Home

124 Page 8 --Iuly 25, 2002 The Yblberts answered no salvage operations were conducted at the sub- ject property and they did in fact have a license to operate salvage operations at the other location. DECISION: Affirmed. The car storage was a valid nonc.onforming use. The township had the initial burden of proving a 'zoning violation. Here, the present use by the Volberts violated the zoning ordinance absent their prov- ing a valid nonconforming use..Then, the Volberts had to prove 'their valid nonconforming use lawfully e,x. isted prior to the enacnnent of the subject zon- Lng ordinance. The court noted the Volberts collected rent at the property. No salvage op- erations were conducted there. %ncome derived from the pr. operty also came from the-automobiles that were finally crushed at the other location. Therefore, the use was indeed lawful prior to the enactment of the zoning ordinance. Thus, the use was deemed, to be a "bona fide commercial operation." Citation: State of Ohio v. Volber, t, Case Nos. 1-01-769, 170, 171, & 172. Court of Appeals of Ohio, ?rd ,¢pp. Dist., Allen Co. (2002). see also: Petti v. Richmond Heights, 449 N.E. 2d 758 (1985). see also: State v. DeHass, 227 N.£.2d 21.2 (1967). Billboards -- Ordinance regulated signs to certain districts Ordinance challenged on basis it violated the ~oning procedure law GEORGIA. (06/'I0/2002) -- Questco Ltd: attempted to erect a billboard and the city denied approval, pointing to the sign ordinance. The ordinance di¥ided the city into districts and regulated the uses of signs relative to the districts in which the signs were erected. Questco challenged the validity of the subject ordinance mad demanded to be compensated for lost profits and attorney fees. The basis of the challenge was the ordinance was enacted in violation of the city's Zoning Procedure [,aw (ZPL). The tit7 responded the regulation of billboard signs was more like regu- lation of business licenses, and the ordinance was not subject to the ZPL. The trial court determined the si~ ordinance was enacted in violation of the ZPL. The court also denied damages of attorney fees and lost profits. The city appealed. DECISION: .~Yirmed. The sig-n 'ordinance was invalid because it was not enacted in accordance wi~ the ZPL. The sign ordinance was enacted to regulate the uses and deVelopment stan- dards of property by means of zones.'~or districts in which signs might be erected. In reading the ordinance as a whole, the city was divided into districts, and signs were regulated within those distzicts. The court rejected the demand to award Questco attorneys' fees and lost profits. Ciran;on: Ci~ of Wcdnur Orove v. ~uesrc~, LTD., Supreme Cou. rr of Georgia, -....) . , ~ ~ .- .,.) ,.~ . No..gO,,AO/~o, S02X0757 (~,00,~).