Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/04/2000

Home

Page 6 -- October 25, 1999 Z.g. The ordinance defined "recreational vehicles" as trailers, pick-up campers, motorized homes, folding-tent trailers, boats, and boat trailers and prohibited parking RVs in front yards at night. The planning commission recommended approval, and the city published notice of a public hearing. The notice stated the hearing was to discuss the parking of RVs on residential property. The city passed the ordinance after the heating. The owners challenged this ordinance as well, clairrdhg the public notice was inadequate. They claimed the notice was enough to notify owners of"rec- reational vehicles," but not owners of trailers, campers, folding-tent trailers, boats, and boat trailers. The owners argued there wasn't a fair public debate on the issue because not all residents affected by the ordinance, such as those who owned campers, boats, or boat trailers, were notified of the topic of the hearing. The owners also claimed the ordinance was invalid because the city didn't present the ordinance for a public vote. The city charter required approval by a majority of the city's votes before passage of an ordinance that changed the zoning classification or use of property. The city claimed the ordinance was merely regulatory, not a zoning ordi- nance, so a public vote wasn't needed. The court determined the ordinance was valid. It reasoned that although the ordinance was a zoning amendment and wasn't submitted to the voters for approval, it didn't need voter approval because it was merely regulatory. It didn't prohibit the parking of RVs; it only placed reasonable conditions on when and where they could be parked. The court said the ordinance had only a limited effect on the use of property because storing RVs wasn't a customary residential use. The owners appealed. DECISION: Reversed; judgment for the owners. The ordinance was invalid. The city charter was clear. Zoning changes had to be approved by referen- dum, so the city should have submitted the issue to its voters before it made the zoning amendment. Although regulations concerning the off-street parking of recreational ve- hicles could be considered a regulatory ordinance, the city chose to treat it as a zoning issue. The referendum requirement didn't distinguish between whether a zoning change was regulatory or prohibitory or whether a use was ancillary. Citation: Donsante v. City of Wickliffe, Court of Appeals of Ohio, ]]th Appellate Dist., Lake County, Nos. 98-L-046 & 98-L-047 (1999). Conditional Approval -- Company refuses to remove private road despite town requirement WISCONSIN (7/30/99) -- U.S.. Paper Converters Inc. and R & D Controls Inc. owned industrial property in the town of Grand Chute. The companies planned to build a paper converting plant. Because the plant would exceed