1980 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Board of Adjustment - Minutes September 16, 1980 Page 2 5. Registration and mapping of non-conforming mineral extraction 4 sites was done by including the total 1/4 1/4 in which other sites were located and usually involved lands owned by than the registrant. CONCLUSION: 1. Mineral Extraction should reanot ofedepositstenormal mode limited of opera without considering the area Aclministra tion, etc. Supporting case law listed in the Zoning tor's appeal is as follows: 173A2d 430 (App D'v Moore vs. Bridgewater Tp. , 69 NJ Super 1, 1961) . asset cases, the court should Arguing that in diminishing hts of a non-conforming uses , follow a broader view of the such user an intent to expand and specifically imputing round that it such use to the entire tract owned, ratithe ground hae t was not feasible to start mining p e once. 19 Utah 2d Gibbons & Reed Co. vs. North Salt Lake City, 329, 431 P2d 559 (1967) . t of a "use" is different Stating that in such cases the concept and again imputing regardless of how large because the land itself is the resource, mined when the zoning restrictio an intent was cte l y being mined ine tract, an area was actually was adopted. 248 Minn 549, 80 NW 2d 863. ied by such Restriction io Talbot, use to area occup Ordinance was interpreted Restrictioe of non-conforming °of1Zoning to mean all use at time of adoption diminishing asset, gravel, such asset, and of that involving being of that paw of owner's land containing were actually not merely that area in which op conducted at time of adoption of ordinance. Page vs. Gary-Wheaton Bank, 42 ill App Zd 299, County of Du 192 NE 2d 311 e of protected non-confor ng existence and scope Ordinance, in relation to In determining adoption of Zoning in mining gravel, owner should be re use at time of adop particu- lar property owned for use part e the ope c- arded as "using" all that land which contains the p g constitutes an integral et be under actual lar asset and which portion may not y tion, though P excavation. to make registration was entire The possible Board presumes that the mineral extractions on the entire 2' the continuation ht of Corp poopert the registrant and in light the issue atio be Counsel' owned o of fact #4 above) Counsel's opinion (finding caner. resolved in favor of the land o include land owned other, property owners by Non-conforming than nq mineegi extrtcbecausebsaid,° ty mineral 3• the registrant non-conforming by other than register. Likewise, non-co , lease, etc.) did not son efpansi ri lease, 10.21 (5 expansion into or addition by rr of other lands nd for this purpose °f other lands ■ y