Worthington v. Everson
| Decision Date | 10 May 1967 |
| Citation | 10 Ohio App.2d 125,226 N.E.2d 570 |
| Parties | , 39 O.O.2d 234 WORTHINGTON et al., Appellants, v. EVERSON et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Foreman & McMannis, Medina, for appellants.
Louis R. Wilson, Wadsworth, for appellees.
This is an appeal on questions of law and fact lodged in this court from a judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Medina County, wherein that court refused to enjoin the operation of an automobile junk yard business.
In November, 1950, Montville Township, Medina County, adopted a zoning resolution prohibiting junk yard businesses in the area in question, and further provided that 'a building or structure devoted to a nonconforming use at the time this resolution takes effect may not be altered or enlarged so as to extend said nonconforming use.'
Victor Everson began his business on a 4.41 acre plot of leased ground prior to the effective date of the zoning resolution. Later, after the passage of the resolution, he completed the purchase of this land which, prior to the resolution, he had agreed to buy. When the resolution took effect, Victor Everson had 33 junk automobiles stored on the 4.41 acre parcel of land. At the time of the hearing in the trial court, there were about 400 junk vehicles on this land.
It is claimed, by the plaintiffs, appellants herein, that this increase in the number of junk automobiles is a violation of the zoning resolution. Under their theory of this action, the plaintiffs insist that Everson can only use so much of his land for the junk automobiles as was used when the resolution went into effect. That is to say that Everson could store 33 junk automobiles on his land, and no more.
That part of Section VII of the resolution which is quoted above concerns itself with buildings, not land at such. If it was contemplated to prevent land use of the purpose now contended for by the plaintiffs, the resolution should have so specified. Without a restriction as to land use only, there can be no effective complaint made when an otherwise lawful business is increased. Here, there is no enlargement of nonconforming buildings used in conjunction with the junk business.
Section 519.02, Revised Code, provides that a township may limit the uses of land for trade, industry, residence, recreation, of other purposes. This was not done in this zoning resolution. The entire tenor of this zoning resolution concerns itself with buildings as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carroll v. Hurst
...is in accord with the law in other jurisdictions. (See City of Central City v. Knowlton (1978), 265 N.W.2d 749; Worthington v. Everson (1967), 10 Ohio App.2d 125, 226 N.E.2d 570; Kent County Planning Inspector v. Abel (1967), 246 Md. 395, 228 A.2d 247.) The nature of defendant's use of his ......
-
City of Des Moines v. Ogden
..., 265 N.W.2d 749, 753–54 (Iowa 1978). We based our decision in part on the Ohio Court of Appeals' holding in Worthington v. Everson , 10 Ohio App.2d 125, 226 N.E.2d 570, 571 (1967), in which that court held that the increased inventory of junk cars from 33 to over 400 on the same acreage di......
-
State v. Scherer
...984, 59 Ill.Dec. 587, 431 N.E.2d 1344 (1982); City of Central City v. Knowlton, 265 N.W.2d 749 (Iowa 1978); Worthington v. Everson, 10 Ohio App.2d 125, 226 N.E.2d 570 (1967). Contrary to the State's assertion that abandonment of a nonconforming use was the only issue in the Union Quarries c......
-
Cicerella, Inc. v. Jerusalem Tp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals
...2 Ohio St.2d 129, 207 N.E.2d 234; State ex rel. Moore Oil Co. v. Dauben (1919), 99 Ohio St. 406, 124 N.E. 232; Worthington v. Everson (1967), 10 Ohio App.2d 125, 226 N.E.2d 570; Ederer v. Bd. of Zoning Appeals (1969), 18 Ohio Misc. 143, 248 N.E.2d 234; Moffatt v. Forrest City (1961), 234 Ar......