Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/04/2010

Home

1 .. .... ( '.: '" .~. . r\, .'-. . a'.~'.'........: ~. .. . ~ r:. \c. :i;:oning Bullet.in January 10, 2010 I Volume 41 No.1 OHIO (11/12/09)-Under Ohio statutory law, R.C. 519.02, zoning resolutionsadopt'ed by townships to create zoning regulations to cover the unincorporated portions of townships have to be "in accordance withil comprehensive plan.'; This case apdressed whether: (1) a town- ship must develop its own comprehensive plan in order to conform to R.C. 519.02; or (2) the township may rely on the comprehensive plan developed by its county. '- . The BackgroundlFacts:B.J. Alan Company, Phantom of West Sa- lem, Inc., and Zoldan Family Ohio Limited Partnership (collectively referred to as "Phantom") intended to construct and operate a state- . licensed fireworks store in the township. In furtherance of that goal, Phantom purchased property in an unincorporated area of the town- ship. The property was zoned A-Agricultural. Still, Phantom applied to the township for a zoning certificate for its proposed fireworks store. The zoning. inspector denied Phantom's application. So Phantom filed an appeal and request for a use variance with the township's :Board of Zoning Appeals("BZA")~ The BZA affirmed the zoning in- spector's denial of the zoning certificate and denied Phantom's request for a use variance. Phantom appealed to court. Before the court, Phantom pointed to the township's zoning resolution that covered unincorporated areas of the township (the "Ordinance"). The Ordinance contained two zon- ing districts: A-Agricultural and B-Business/Industry. The zoning map, which was incorporated into the Ordinance, designated all land in the unincorporated areas of the township as A-Agricultural. No land was mapped B-Business/Industry. This meant that any landowner seeking to undertake business or industrial development 'had to either apply to the zoning commission for a change of district boundaries on the zoning map or seek from the BZA a variation from the Ordinance. Phantom argued, among other things, that the Ordinance violated R.C. 519.02: Under R.C. 519.02, zoning resolutions adopted by town- ships to create zoning regulations to cover the unin~orporated portions of townships had to be "in accordance with a comprehensive plan." Phantom argued that the Ordinance violated this R.C.'519.02 require- ment-because: (1) the township did not have its own comprehensive plan; and (2) the Ordinance contained only one zoning district and was therefore "by definition. . . not zoning in accordance with a com- prehensive plan." The township maintained that the Ordinance was not in violation of R.C. 519.02 because the township had followed the county's compre- . hensive plan when creating it. The trial court affirmed the BZA's decision. Phantom appealed. Agreeing with Phantom, the court of appeals re- versed. It held that the Ordinance violated R.C. 519.02 because: (1) the township.did not have a comprehensive plan; and (2) the county's comprehensive plan could not function as a comprehensive plan that @ 2010 Thomson Reuters .. . .: ~ .~. . , ~..~-' "." . . Ole< .~ :i:-~ ;~i' '. 11 , .."...,......_~ ."-:t\ . \ . I 63