Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/07/1999

Home

z.g, November I0, 1999- Page 7 DECISION: Affirmed. The ordinances conflicted with state law. The Ohio constitution stated that municipalities had the authority to exer- cise all powers of local self-government and to adopt within their limits local police, sanitary, and similar regulations that were not in conflict with state law. The enactment of zoning ordinances was an exercise of the police power not an exercise of local self-government. State law governed the licensing and regulation of construction and demo- lition debris facilities throughout Ohio. No construction and demolition debris facility could be established unless the operator of the proposed facility £rrst obtained a license from the board of health or the director of environmental protection. The license was site-specific and there were limitations as to where they could be licensed. The license application must include accompanying plans, specifications, and information regarding the facility and its method of operation. If the board of health or the director found that the proposed facility complied with those rules and standards, the board or director would issue a license. BFI's proposed facility was located in an industrial district. Although the facility.had a license, it was prohibited by the excavation ordinance. Although Sheffield could restrict state-authorized facilities to certain districts with ap- propriate zoning, it could not completely prohibit the facility. Citation: Village of Sheffield v. Rowland, Sutvreme Court of Ohio, No. 98-1674 (1999). see also: Set Products Inc. v. Bainbridge Township Board of Zoning Appeals, 5]0 N.E. 2d 373 (1987). see also: Canton v. Whitman, 337 N.E. 2d 766 (1975). Taking -- When is a temporary taking compensable? SOUTH CAROLINA (10/4/99) -- Sea Cabins on the Ocean IV was created by a master deed in 1980. One of the common elements of Sea Cabins was a fishing pier that extended approximately 900 feet into the ocean. In 1989, Hur- ricane Hugo damaged a significant amount of the pier. The city informed Sea Cabins that it was considering the adoption of an ordinance to declare the remaining portion of the pier a nuisance. The ordi- nance was adopted. It stated that the pier would be removed if it was not repaired. Two months tater, the city passed the Beach Franchise Ordinance, which required a license agreement to be entered into with the city as a condition for obtaining a building permit. The agreement required the pier to be open to the public. Sea Cabins sued the city, arguing that the Beach Franchise Ordinance was invalid. - Before a decision on the Beach Franchise Ordinance was made the city