Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/04/1998

Home

Page 2-- June 25, 1998 z.g. Zoning Violation m Owner claims roofed fence with watchtowers isn't ~building' or 'structure' Citation: Warren County Combined Health District v. Redmon, Court of Appeals of Ohio, 12th Apl~eIlate Dist., Warren County, No. CA97-06-064 (1998) Redmon owned property in Clearcreek Township, Ohio. He built a 10- foot-high fence, which needed no zoning permit, around the property. Redmon expanded the fence between 1991 and 19971 He never got a zon- ing permit for the expansion, which included two "watchtowers" that rose over the original fence. After neighbors complained about the watchtowers, county zoning officials inspected Redmon's property and found a roof structure supported by the fence covered the entire perimeter of the property. Redmon stored a large amount of personal property underneath the roof. On various occasions, Redmon described the structure as a Jamestown fence, a ~ecurity fence, a veranda, or a deck. He said the roof gave him security to keep outsiders from robbing his property or picking the locks of his house. The zoning commission sought a court order requiring Redmon to clestroy the structure. It said the expansion violated the county zoning resolution, which stated no building or structure could be built, enlarged, or altered without a zoning permit. The resolution defined a "building" as any structure designed to support, enclose, or protect persons or property. It defined a "structure" as "anything constructed ... which requires fixed location on the ground." Redmon claimed the expansion wasn't a "building" or "structure" because the fence that supported the expansion had no foundation. The court found Redmon violated the zoning resolution by not getting a zoning permit for the fence expansion, and it ordered him to demolish the roof structure. It assessed a fine orS100 per day for each day the fence wasn't removed. Redmon appealed, arguing the court improperly found that his "augmented fence" was a building or structure. DECISION: Affirmed. The court properly ordered Redmon to remove the expansion. Redmon violated the county zoning resolution by expanding the fence with- out a zoning permit. Although the fence itself didn't need a zoning permit, the expansion had to be considered a "building" -- and therefore needed a permit. The roof had to be considered a "structure" under the zoning resolution. The expansion was attached to the fence in many areas, and the fence was clearly in a fixed position. It was supported by posts, which were also in fixed locations. The expansion could also be considered a building. Redmon claimed the expansion ensured his personal protection and provided for the storage of personal property, and the zoning resolution defined a "building" as any structure intended to shelter or protect persons or property. see also: McFarland v. Board of Al~peals, 222 N.E.2d 841 (1967). I I ! I I I I' I I I I I I I ! I I I