Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/01/1999

Home

Z.B. May 25, 1999 -- Page 3 agricultural use. The trial court's ruling didn't prevent Corbet from using his property for agricultural purposes or from having structures related to agricul- ture, it simply meant Corbet had to remove the vehicles and equipment cur- rently on the property. Although Corbet got building and zoning permits allowing him to build a residence, he failed to begin construction before his permits expired. This meant that even if the trailers and equipment had been allowed as incidental to the construction of a residence, they were no longer being used legally bemuse Corbet no longer had permits allowing him to build a residence. Citation: Chatham Township Board of Trustees v. Corbet, Court of Appeals of Ohio, 9th Appellate Dist., Medina County, No. 2756-M (1999). see also: State v. Huffman, 253 N.E.2d 812 (1969). see also: Schade v. Carnegie Body Co., 463 N.E.2d 1001 (1982). Special Permit Board conditions permit on relocation of house to protect reservoir NEW YORK (3/31/99) . Geiben and Lesch owned a 33-acre parcel in a con- servation district in the town of Pomfret. They applied to the zoning board for a special use permit allowing them to build a house on the property. The owners' lot was adjacent to a reservoir. They planned to build the house on the western slope of a ridge, within 200 feet of the reservoir. They had already begun construction when they applied for a permit. The board approved the special permit with conditions, one of which was that the house be relocated to the eastern portion of the property m away from the reservoir. State law prohibited those who lived in a watershed from engag- ing in any activity that would contaminate the water supply, and the town's zoning regulations prohibited septic systems within 300 feet of reservoirs. The owners appealed to court, arguing the board had no authority to im- pose conditions on their permit because their proposal satisfied all-require- ments of the local zoning ordinance. They also argued they had provided proof from the local health department that the proposed project (and its proposed septic system) wouldn't significantly impact the reservoir. The court refused to void the conditions, and the owners appealed again. DECISION: Affirmed. The town could attach any appropriate conditions in the interest of envi- ronmental protection in conservation districts. The board's conditions were designed to protect the reservoir and to ensure the project complied with the 200-foot reservoir setback. State law prohibited those who lived in a watershed from engaging in any activity that would contaminate the water supply. To this end, local regulations prohibited septic systems within 300 feet of any reservoir. The owners proposed building a house with a septic system on land that sloped down to a reservoir less than 200 feet away, so it was reasonable for the