Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/07/1998

Home

Page 6 ~ March 25, 1998 z.g. the asphalt trucks would be cleaned at the plant by a system that separated the oils from the waters. The waste water would go into nearby concrete settling ponds. He said the ponds would be designed for flood situations, but admitted accidents were possible.' The salesperson also didn't dispute the residents' claims that t!~e asphalt plant would increase truck traffic in the area.. After the hearing, the commission adopted the amendment. Greenback sued the commission, asking the court ..to find that the zoning amendment was invalid. The commission asked the court for judgment without a .trial; claiming its passage of the zoning amendment was a legislative matter over which the court had limited powers. .. The court found the amendment was valid, and Greenback appealed. The company submitted sworn statements of industrial consultants and one of Greenback's owners, who attested to the cleanliness and safety of modem asphalt plants and the 'Physical impiacticality of locating an' asphalt plant in'industrial districts. Greenback claimed its evidence showed the existence of disputed facts that entitled it to a trial. " " DECISION: Affirmed. "" There was a rational basis for the Commission's approval of the amend- ment, so the commission's action wa~ valid. Local legislative bodies had broad discretioninpassing or amending zoning ordinances'. When the validity of a zoning Ordinance Was fairly debatable, courts couldn't substitute their judgment for that of the local legislative body. A zoning ordinance had to be found valid unless it was "clearly arbitrary,'capricious, or unreasonable, having no substantial relationship to the public health, safety, or welfare, or plainly contrary to the Zoning-laws." - The issue of whether the zoning amendment'was in the community's best interest was "fairly debatable." The county could properly have found that an asphalt plant was an industrial us'e that wasn't compatible with the residential and agricultural uses of a Rural Residential District. see also:McCallen v. City of Memphis, 786 S.W.2d 633 (1990). see also: Carter v. Adams, 928 S. W.2d 39 (1996). Conditional Use---. Developer says board had no reason to deny permit for assisted living facility Heiney v. Zoning Board of Appeals, Sylvania Township, Court of Appeals of Ohio, Sixth Appellate District, No. L-97-1353 (1998) The Sylvania Township, Ohio, zoning ordinance allowed assisted living facilities as conditional uses. H & H Development Company (developer) applied to the township Zoning Board of Appeals for a conditional use permit to build an assisted living facility. The county planning commission recommended that the board approve the development with a few conditions, but a regional planning commission recommended that the board deny the permit. Neither of the commissions