Mahoning Express Co. v. Youngstown city
Mahoning Express Co. v. Youngstown city
Opinion of the Court
OPINION
This cause is in this court on appeal from the Court of Common Pleas of this county. The action below was for an injunction to restrain the City of Youngstown from removing from a certain lot on Glenwood Avenue the equipment and property of 1he plaintiff in this action. The cause came on to be heard in the court below and there was a finding and judgment in favor of the City of Youngstown, so that the issue to lie determined here is whether or not the order directing the removal of this plant from this lot on Glenwood Avenue is a valid order.
The facts of importance in this connection are as follows: In 1929 the City of Youngstown passed what is known as a zoning ordinance, in which there are certain' classifications of business that are prescribed within certain parts of the city, and these -zones or districts as fixed by the ordinance range all the way from residence A to industrial B, industrial B being the lowest classification of districts in the city of Youngstown.
For some five years prior to the passage of this ordinance, Herman Halt had used this lot on Glenwood Avenue, situated between Woodland and Ridge Avenues, for the purpose of storing second-hand building supplies, and upon it there was a coal tipple; and the lot so used was fronting 179 feet on the westerly side of Glenwood and extending back in a westerly direction a distance of 200 feet. After the death of
In the zoning ordinance there is, as set out in §10, page 11, a provision with reference to “non-conforming uses,” and it reads as follows:
“The lawful use of a building or land existing at the time of the adoption of this ordinance may be continued, although such use does not conform to the regulations of the district in which it is maintained. An existing non-conforming use may be extended throughout a building, providing no structural alterations are made. An existing non-conforming use of a building or premises may be changed to another nonconforming use of the same or a higher classification but no building or premises in which a non-conforming use has been changed to a more restricted use, shall again be devoted to a less restricted use.”
Thus it becomes clear that when the occupancy of the premises changed from Halt to the Mahoning Express Company, the Mahoning Express Company might have transacted business upon that property similar to that transacted by Herman Halt and it would have been a non-conforming use of the premises. He might have conducted the same kind of business or he may have used the premises for a higher classification and still have been within his rights. After the Mahoning Express Company took-charge of this property all went well for-some length of time and then three families living upon Glenwood Avenue petitioned the Planning Commission of the city to have this business removed. The reason-given for requiring • its removal was that trucks in the night season made much noise, and the principal petitions were perhaps the strongest in their denunciation of the use of the lot for trucks loading and unloading, and said that it disturbed their period of rest, although this was on a much traveled horoughfare. The record discloses the amount of traffic passing from day to day. There was testimony by one woman to the effect that she had not slept for a year, which seems quite improbable.
One of the principal petitioners was an applicant for employment by this company but there was no opportunity at the time the application was made and employment was declined, and very soon after that time the Planning Commission was petitioned to remove this express depot of the Mahoning 'Express Company. Just the real reason for this application is not made quite clear. Mr. Madicus of the Planning Commission says that it was a matter of much consideration when the matter came before the Commission. However, an order was made for its removal. The city was about to require it to be done when this action was brought and with the result mentioned.
In view of the fact that the Mahoning Express Company used -this lot for a business which would be at least a somewhat higher classification than it had been used for, by Herman Halt, it is clear that the provision -as to a “non-conforming use” would be applicable here, and even though there would be caused some disturbance by night time noises, it is just difficult to understand how the principal petitioners in this case would differentiate those noises from the noises of other trucks or other vehicles passing upon Glenwood Avenue; no doubt this business would occasion some noise, but it employs quite a number of people, expends many thousand dollars annually and this is some excuse for some little noise and inconvenience.
Judgment for plaintiff.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.