Why this case matters

 (It will be helpful to read the first Post.  It's the one from April.  Look over to the right in the Blog Archive.)


Maybe you think zoning is sort of complicated stuff.  Maybe you think it doesn't really matter since this property isn't on your street.  Maybe you think, well the property got fixed up in the end, so it's all good now, right?


Yes, a little.  Yes, it does.  No, not at all.

Yes zoning can be complicated and it's based on laws and ordinances.  But we're not here right now to talk about the big world of zoning.  We're here to talk about why this case at 224 East Oak should be important - very important  - to you if you live in Old Louisville.  Or, frankly if you live in any other historic neighborhood.

This case revolved around a prior use that was once lawful, but that would not be allowed today.  That's the heart of nonconforming use.  Zoning code (not just in Louisville, but everywhere) holds that nonconforming uses should eventually go away and properties will at some point conform to the zoning in effect currently.  When nonconforming uses go away, properties and communities become what is planned or desired for an area.  It's a simple concept, really.  Some uses used to be considered OK, now they're not.  No one should have their property's use altered against their will - IF they follow the rules.  This is another case of "use it or lose it."

For a nonconforming use to continue, the use has to be continuous through the years.  (That's the "use it or lose it" part.)

In the 224 East Oak case the Board of Zoning Adjustment (BOZA) through their discussions, agreed that the non-conforming use had been abandoned for a period of time (in excess of a year.)  Then BOZA ruled that because the previous owner hadn't physically changed any of the interior structure, the use could continue/be reinstated.  We've been searching case law, reading statutes and code and can't find that rule anywhere.  And three different attorneys tell us that is absolutely not what the law says.

Following along that path of reasoning, nonconforming uses would never go away.  Anyone could come along at any future date and reinstate a previous use in a property, as long as there hadn't been any physical changes to the interior.

Here's the part about why you should care.

There's a building on my street that hasn't changed it's appearance in 15 years.  The signs in the windows haven't changed except for becoming more faded.  I haven't been inside, but I'll bet no one has moved any walls around.  It obviously used to be a bar.  So, following the reasoning of BOZA, a new owner could come in and reinstitute the bar.  Never mind that the property appears to have been vacant for at least 15 years.  Never mind that a bar use is not allowed on my street.

Are there any buildings like that on your street?  Old, somewhat neglected, used to be something else, and probably hasn't had the interior altered?  Maybe it wasn't a bar, but just a house cut up into a 10 plex.

This BOZA decision effectively nullifies our zoning.  That's why you should care.

And that's why your neighbors are appealing the 224 East Oak case to Circuit Court.  It's to protect us all.