Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/04/2010

Home

January 10, 20101 Volume 41 No.1 Zoning Bulletin would meet the requirements of R.C. 519.02 because it '''did not set 0 forth goals or recommendations specific to [the township.]" .......,,! The township appealed. At its discretion, the Supreme Court of Ohio accepted the appeal. The Court's Decision: Judgment of the court of appeals reversed. Disagreeing with the court of appeals'- the Supreme Court of Ohio heldthat "a countywide comprehensive plan can fulfill the 'compre- hensive plan' requirement of KC. 519.02." The court reached this conclusion upon finding that the plain language of R.C. 519.02 did "not require that a township create its own comprehensive plan-it ' . require[d] only that a zoning resolution be 'in accordance with a com- prehensiveplan.'" The court noted that county comprehensive plans could: take into account the "interrelationship of communities and mar-shaIn resources. and expertise"; and "address zoning goals like conservation and controlling sprawl that townships within the region share but cannot achieve alone." Thus, concluded the c;ourt:, "a co.unty comprehensive plan that sets forth county land-use goals and recom- mendations can constitute a 'comprehensive plan' for purposes of R.C. 519.02." The court next concluded that, here, the county comprehensive plan that the township relied on when adopting the Ordinance constituted a comprehensive plan for purposes of R.C. 519.02. This was because the county's comprehensive plan: . "present[ed] a thorough study of the region and set[] forth comprehensive land-use goals for the county"; and "demonstrate[d] an intent to include [the township] within its purview." , E"" .~.,... ..; "::} See also: Cleveland Elee. Illuminating Co. v. City of Cle;'.Jeland, 37 Ohio St. 3d 50,524 N.E.2d 441 (1988). Case Note: In its decision, the court did not determine whether the township's Ordinance was "in accordance" with the county's comprehensive plan-as required by R.C. 519.02. The court re- mandea. the matter to the court of appeals for its further consider- ation of the matter in accordance with the higher court's opinion. r.,. ~/ 12 @ 2010 Thomson Reuters ...!i.; , ., 'l; :.- '.~ .,:' . '. . ;.. .~". . , " "..~ , . . ,. .;'?';;. -ti.-r 64 ,~' " .... : '"