Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/07/1998

Home

Z.B. March 25, 1998 -- Page 7 explained its recommendation. The township zoning ordinance required the board to consider a number of factors when ruling on a conditional use permit application. These included the location and size of the use; whether the use conflicted with the normal traffic on residential streets; the location and height of buildings, walls, and fences; and whether the landscaping would hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use of adjacent land and buildings. The board held a hearing, at which a number of people testifiedl. All of the speakers were sworn in, but there was no hearing examiner. A traffic e. ngineer said the proposed facility would create less traffic than did an adjacent funeral home, so the traffic impact would be minimal. The engineer blamed current and future traffic PrOblems in the area on the development of a local mall. A land use expert also testified that the area's traffic problems were due to the mall. The land expert said he evaluated the site and believed the property was inappropriate for any permitted uses. The developer's engineer pointed out that the board had issued a conditional use permit for the funeral home next door less than two years earlier. "' Several area residents testified about traffic problems in the area. None of them, however, testified about the impact the developer's proposed business would have on traffic. A politician said he believed there were several zoning violations on the property. (The developer's engineer later refuted this.) The politician and other residents also said they were concerned about residents of the facility wandering away from the site, increased dangers of having elderly people drive in the area, and the general increase in traffic in the area. After the hearing, the board denied the developer's request without stating a reason. ' The developer appealed to court, arguing the board's decision was arbitrary, unreasonable, and not supported by substantial evidence. ~ The court held the board's decision wasn't arbitrary or unreasonable, and was supported by the evidence. It said the developer couldn't rely on the board's grant of a conditional use permit for the funeral home to support its permit request. The developer appealed. . DECISION: Reversed, in the developer's favor. The trial court abused its discretion by affirming the board's decision because the board's decision wasn't supported by reliable evidence. The developer was entitled to a conditional use permit. The board's hearing wasn't proper because there was no hearing examiner involved. And, although the speakers were all sworn in as a group, the majority of the "witnesses" were either incompetent to testify or didn't testify about relevant facts. No reliable evidence supported the board's decision. In fact, the only direct, probative evidence su?l~orted the developer's application. Both the traffic engineer and the land use expert testified that any traffic problems in the area were due to a nearby mall, and that the assisted living facility would have a