Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/05/1998

Home

Page 6--April 10, 1998 Z.B. cant value after it was rezoned industrial. This meant there was no taking of DeCook's land under state law. Nor was the rezoning a taking under federal law. The rezoning served a legitimate purpose by promoting the orderly development of land. Other than claiming the city rezoned the land for the sole benefit of the airport, DeCook neither showed nor argued the city's rezoning had no valid public purpose. He also couldn't prove he wag deprived of all economically viable use of his land because he could still develop it as industrial. see also: McShane v. City of Faribault, 292 N. W.2d 253 (1980). see also: Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104, 98 S. Ct. 2646, 57 L.Ed. 2d 631 (1978). Recreational Use-- Owner wants to run paintball games in residential area Fallang v. Butler County Board of Zoning Appeals, Court of Appeals of Ohio, ]2th Appellate Dist., Butler County, No. CA97-O6-H8 (1998) Fallang owned a 62-acre farm in Butler County, Ohio. Only 23 acres of his property could be farmed, and on the rest he set up a field to play paintball. Paintball was a recreational activity with carbon-dioxide-powered guns that shot gelatin capsules filled with completely biodegradable food dye. The velocity of the guns was highly regulated for safety. The game was similar to "capture the flag," with each team trying to capture the other team's flag without being shot. Fallang asked the county zoning board of appeals to let him run a commer- cial paintball field on his property. He had already been using his property for private paintball games, but needed conditional use approv~'l to run commercial games. Under the county zoning resolution, a conditional use wasn't allowed if it would "adversely impact the health, safety or welfare of the surrounding area." The board's staff recommended approving Fallang's request with some restrictions. It recommended limiting the games to daylight hours only, ensur- ing the fields were at least 75 yards from all property lines, and prohibiting obnoxious equipment or noises. The board held a hearing. Two of the three board members present voted in favor of Fallang's request, which meant the request was denied because the votes of three of the board's five members were needed to approve a condi- tional use. The member who voted against Fallang's request didn't give any reason for his decision. Fallang appealed to court. The court held its own hearings when the board failed to provide factual conclusions supporting its decision. A number of neighbors testified they were concerned about increased traf- fic, property devaluation, attraction of "militant people" to the paintball field, the effects on a church daycare center, and the effects on livestock in the area. Fallang testified that the increased traffic would be limited to 15 to 20 cars per day, primarily on weekends. The owner of a similar facility said the traffic impact would be very minimal, no more than a family cookout. Fallang said the