Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/03/2008

Home

Zoning Bulletin /-\ { 1 of the County Clerk or Register of Deeds where the property [was] located." This system of filing subdivision plats existed statewide. When O'Mara acquired title to the property, the description he had of the property was from a tax map, which showed only two boundaries for the lot conveyed. The appeals court noted that, to properly determine the boundaries of his holdings, O'Mara should have searched the county clerk's property records until it found the subdivision plat that had originally created the parcels. Had O'Mara done so, he would have discovered the open space restriction. In addition, towns were bestowed with the broad authority to regulate land use within their borders-including the ability to im- pose reasonable conditions in the course of approving a subdivision. The appeals court found that "the ability to impose such conditions on the use of land. through the zoning process [was] meaningless without the ability to enforce those conditions, even against a sub- sequent purchaser." The affirmative answer was returned to the 2nd Circuit, which would consider the finding of the appeals court in its final decision. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over Con- necticut, New York, and Vermont. . Lots-County denies minimum lot size variance request r'!eeded to make lot buildable Trial court finds denial amounts to illegal taking of lot Citation: Haisley v. Mercer Cty. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 2007 WL 3342768 (Ohio App. 3 Dist.) OHIO (11/13/07)-In 1996, Haisley purchased a lot in the High- land Park Addition located in Mercer County. The following year, Haisley purchased an adjoining lot. The first lot, number 77, con- tained an existing residential home. The second lot, number 76, had contained a residence previously, but it was demolished after being damaged by fire. No house was rebuilt on lot 76 since Hais- ley purchased it. In 2006, Haisley was interested in selling both parcels as individ- uallots. The county zoning inspector told him that neither lot met minimum frontage requirements, thereby making it an undersized lot. Because lot 77 had an existing home, it could continue as a non- conforming use, but lot 76 would not be buildable. Haisley applied to the county zoning board of appeals for a variance to waive the minimum lot size requirement so as to permit the sale of 10t76 as a building lot.,j) Mter a hearing, the board denied the request. No formal decision of the hearing was issued, and no transcript of the proceedings was 4 78 ()