Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/02/2002

Home

I I I I I I I I I ! ,, ! ! I I April I0, 2002 -- Page 7 operations. The court also noted the current use was different in its effect on the neighborhood. The court allowed OS&G to continue operation with re- strictions, including a limit of only 1,500 cubic yards of removal material. OS&G continued its sand and g-ravel removal operation and, by its own admission, exceeded the 1,500 cubic yard limit. The land court found (SS&G in contempt and issued sanctions, os&G appealed, again claiming its opera- tion was a legal nonconform/ng use and they should not be required to apply for a special permit. DEciSION: Affirmed. The company exceeded its prior nonconforming use. OS&G's e3;pansion of the e~sting sand and gavel operation, constituted a substantial extension of the previous nonconforming use. Thus, the resulting use had to comply with the current by-laws to avoid becoming an illegal use. The zoning enforcement officer did not overreach when he issued the cease- and-desist order. Such an order was acceptable and common enforcement proc- lice among municipal officers who were responsible for enforcing zoning by-laws. The court also affirmed the contempt decision. OS&G offered no evidence the court's order was not clear. Further, OS&G, by its oWn admission, Contin- ued its illegal operation after receiving the court order. Citation: Oakharn Sand & Gravel Corp. v. Town of Oakharn, Appeals CoUrt of Massachusetts, Nos. 99-P-655 & 99-P-2067 (2002). see also: Ka-Hur Enterprises V.. Zoning Board Of Appeals of ?rovincetown, 66! N.E. 2d 120 (1996). Adjoining Property Owner Neighbor complain.S, of' co'mmercial' development Neighbor also believes he suffered property damage from grading GEORGIA (2/21/02) --Davis and Holt (Davis)were Owners of about 16 acres of land. Six acres of this land was within city limits and adjacent to Kay's home. Both Kay's and Davis' property were zoned "R-A" for residential or agricultural use. In 1999, Davis started grading operations on the property. Kay assumed Davis intended to prepare the land for commercial use and complained he suf: fered property damage as a result of the grading. Kay noted his home became visible to the local highway. Further, he char~ed Davis failed to establish a 15-foot buffer zone between the alleged commercial property and Kay's property as required by statute. City officials learned of the grading operations and decided to visit the site. When they arrived, they advised Davis he needed a grading Permit to continue the project. When asked the purpose of the grading, Davis responded he intended 240