Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/04/2000

Home

z.g. October 25, 1999 -- Page 3 and unreasonable. This particular resolution had a valid purpose--to preserve the agricultural character of the township and limit indus, try in areas with agri- culturally productive soil. Finally, the township officials were entitled to immunity. In making vari- ance decisions, the officials acted in a quasi-judicial capacity and were there- fore entitled to immunity under state law. Citation: Castle Manufactured Homes Inc. v. Tegtrneieg Court of Appeals of Ohio, 9th Appellate Dist., Wayne County, No. 98CA0065 (1999). see also: Consolidated Management Inc. v. Cleveland, 452 N.E.2d 1287 (1983). see also: Goldberg Companies Inc. v. Richmond Heights City Council, 690 N.E. 2d 510 (1998). Special Permit -- Zoning board makes 'favorable finding' alIowing repair business in residential area MASSACHUSETI'S (9/3/99) ~ Kokernak and his wife owned and lived in a multifamily house in Webster. Their property was zoned for multifamily resi- dential use under the town's zoning bylaw. The bylaw permitted the same uses in a multifamily district as those al- lowed in a single-family district. InclUded among permitted uses was the right to use one's property in connection with his or her trade as a "resident carpen- ter, electrician, painter, plumber or other artisan, provided however that there shall be no external manifestation of said use." Starting in 1994, Kokernak used a metal garage on his property for a small- engine repair business. Duteau, the Kokernaks' neighbor, wrote to the building inspector, asking him to order Kokernak to shut down his repair busiaess. Duteau pointed out that in 1989 Kokernak had applied for and been refused permis- sion by the zoning board to use the premises in this way... The building inspector notified K~kernak of his apparent violation. Soon after, Kokemak applied for a special l~ermit to operate his business in the resi- dential area. The zoning board didn't grant a special'permit, but instead granted a "fa- vorable finding to allow the repair of gasoline engines at the premises." The board noted auto repair shops weren't a permitted use in a residential area, but it said the Kokernaks' proposal wouldn't adversely affect theft neighbors. Duteau appealed the board's decision to court. The judge, assuming the bo'ard had granted a special permit, overturned the board's decision as beyond its authority. The judge applied the state law crite- ria for special permits and decided the board's decision was "not ia harmony with the genera/purpose and intent of the zoning by-law" because of the noise and flammable substances involved in small-engine repair. The Kokernaks appealed, arguing the board properly found they could op- erate the small business on their property. DECISION: Reversed and returned, to the zoning board. ::