Laserfiche WebLink
Thus, for example, in mining, quarrying and similar <br />types of uses, the introduction of new, mechanized <br />devices and equipment is not an enlargement or <br />extension of the use, but merely a more effective <br />method of carrying it on. Union Quarries, Inc. v. <br />Board of Count Commissioners, supra. T e storage <br />o quarrying mac inecy on a lot not used prior to <br />the enactment of the restrictive ordinance has been <br />called an extension of use. The installation of a <br />classifier, and the addition of a sand hopper have <br />been held to constitute unpermitted extensions. <br />The establishment of a ready-mixed concrete <br />facility, a rock-crushing plant, a black topping <br />facility, and a bituminous concrete plant have been <br />held to constitute illegal expansions of <br />nonconforming uses. 3 R. Anderson, The American <br />Law of Zoning, Section 17.57 (1986). <br />7. if one applies the foregoing legal principles, the <br />nonconforming status, if any, of the prior applicant <br />would not be eradicated by the change of ownership to <br />Rocky Mountain Asphalt. In addition, the 36 acres <br />would, in all probability, be considered the parcel upon <br />which the nonconforming use(s), if any, would apply. <br />8. The primary factual issue remaining to be resolved is <br />the nature and extent of the actual gravel operations <br />conducted on the property at the time the County enacted <br />its special use requirements for a Mineral & Natural <br />Resource Extraction Use within the F - Forest District <br />and prohibited a batch plant to be located therein. Did <br />the then property owner/lessee actually commence and <br />continue a crushing operation, and locate and use a <br />batch plant upon the property prior to the County's <br />zoning amendments? See generally Anderson v. Island <br />County, supra. what are the substantive ifferences <br />between the prior actual use and the present <br />contemplated use? <br />D. Available Options. <br />1. Depending upon the Board's analysis and determination of <br />the foregoing legal and factual issues, the following <br />options ace available. <br />a. Consider revocation, at a public hearing, of the <br />Board's 1974 location approval. Any such <br />revocation would have to consider and address the <br />uses, if any, that have vested and/or are accessory <br />to such vested uses, and thus, would remain intact. <br />- 7 - <br />