Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/04/2000

Home

Page 2 -- October 25, 1999 z.g0 Variance m Board gives thr~-year variance for business in agricultural area OHIO (9/29/99) -- Castle Manufactured Homes Inc. sold new and used manu- factured homes. In September 1994, the company leased a 2-acre parcel in Congress Township for its headquarters. On Nov. 8, the township's voters approved a resolution zoning the entire unincorporated area of the township agricultural. The resolution allowed the zoning board to grant variances to "alleviate some demonstrable and unusual hardship or difficult[ies]." Some time in November, Castle Homes hired a contractor to prepare its parcel for the business, although work didn't begin until January 1995. On Jan. 17, the zoning inspector issued Castle Homes a stop work order that stated its construction violated the zoning resolution. Castle Homes applied to the zoning board for a variance to conduct busi- ness in the newly zoned agricultural area. The board approved the variance request with several conditions. One condition limited the variance to three year~, after which the company would' have to reapply. Between 1995 and 1998, friction developed between the company and the township. The company refused to comply with all the variance conditions, and the zoning inspector reportedly imposed further restrictions. In November 1997, the zoning board notified Castle Homes it needed a new variance to continue operations after Jan. 30. The company applied, and the board held a hearing. At the hearing, the company argued some of the conditions on the 1995 variance were invalid, so the variance never expired. The board rejected the company's arguments and denied the variance. Castle Homes appealed to court, asking the court to overturn the board's decision. At the same time, the company sued the township board of trustees, the zoning board, and the zoning inspector. It argued the zoning resolution was unconstitutional and the officials violated the company's civil rights. The court upheld the zoning board's decision. It also granted the town offi- cials jud~mnent without a trial, finding they were immune because they were acting in a quasi-judicial capacity. Castle Homes appealed. DECISION: Affirmed, The board correctly denied the variance request, and the officials were en- titled to immunity. Castle Homes' objections to the 1995 variance conditions came much too late. If the company wanted to challenge those conditions, it should have ob- jected to them at the time the variance was granted. The zoning board acted properly in denying the 1998 variance request. The zoning resolution gave the zoning board discretion in granting variances, and Castle Homes didn't show an unusual hardship. Variances were allowed to lessen the burden of compliance, not to dhange the character of the zoning district. The zoning resolution would not be unconstitutional unless it was arbitrary .?