Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/07/1999

Home

Z.B. July 25, 1999. Page 5 so broad it prohibited activities permitted by the zoning ordinance, such as using equipment from his landscaping business to maintain his property. He said the order prohibited things otherwise allowed by the zoning ordinance, such as storing a computer or calculator or doing bookkeeping, paperwork, or making phone calls for the business. He also said he could no longer park his pickup truck in his driveway. DECISION: Affirmed. The order didn't prohibit Simeone from conducting any activities that didn't violate the zoning ordinance. The court specifically allowed Simeone to use his equipment for residen- tial purposes. The court didn't prohibit Simeone from storing equipment used for bookkeeping, such as computers, typewriters, or calculators. It prohibited him from storing equipment such as dump trucks, dirt screening machines, trailers, gas tanks, and lawn mowers. Though the order mentioned "any and all other equipment," the list of prohibited items showed the court meant to pro- hibit storage of equipment kept outdoors. Simeone wasn't prohibited from engaging in otherwise lawfid conduct such as bookkeeping, paperwork, or making telephone calls for his landscaping busi- ness. The zoning ordinance allowed home occupations only if the owner regis- tered the business and got a home occupancy permit. Simeone had a book- keeping office in his house and had no other office for his business, so he couldn't operate the business from his home without a permit. Because he didn't have a permit, the court could prohibit him from doing bookkeeping, paperwork, or making phone calls from his house. Finally, the prohibition against storing business equipment on the property didn't prohibit Simeone from"parking a pickup truck that he used for personal transportation as well as for commercial purposes. Citatio~: l~e~ro.s'e v. Simeone, Court of Appeals of Ohio, Jlth Appellate Dist., D'~tmbull Coullty, No. 98-T-0069 (1999). . see also: Stores ]~ealty Co. v. Cleveland, 322 N.E. 2d 629 (1975). Zoning Change ~ Neighbors challenge decision to rezone property KENTUCKY (6/25/99) -- Clark owned 47 acres of land in an agricultural/ residential district in the city of Danville. He asked the city to rezone the prop- erty to highway commercial so'he could develop it. The city zoning ordinance stated any request for a zoning change must include a conceptual development plan that showed vehicular and pedestrian access; buildings, parking lots, and land uses; conformance with the city's comprehensive plan; and the impact the development would have on community facilities. The planning commission held a public hearing at which Clark presented a document titled "Conceptual Development Plan," prepared by a surveyor, which was basically a survey with topography lines. It showed an existing entrance to the property from a bypass road but not existing buildings or uses. The Davises, who owned property nearby, opposed Clark's request.