Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/06/1998

Home

Page 8 September 10, 1998 Z.B. Rezoning -- Salvage business owner accuses township of 'reverse spot zoning' Citation: Reese v. The Board of Trustees of Copley Township, Court of Appeals of Ohio, 9th Appellate Dist., Summit County, No. 18738 (1998) In 1977, Reese bought property in Copley Township, Ohio, and opened a salvage business. In 1995, he applied to the township zgning commission to have the property rezoned from open space/conservation to "intensive, auto- mobile-oriented commercial." Zoning commission members personally examined Reese's property, and found neighboring parcels were vacant or used for farming or residential purposes, all of which were consistent with the conservation district. In addition, the commission determined that the soil's seepage and instability and the high water table made the land unsuitable for most urban uses, including a salvage yard. Some of Reese's neighbors had written letters opposing Reese's request. The commission recommended that the township board of trustees deny the application. The board of trustees held a public hearing. Reese presented evidence in support of his application, including a petition, signed by neighbors, stating the conservation designation was "unrealistic" because of the existing uses of property in the area. Reese offered an environmental survey that stated only a small portion of his land was wetlands, not enough to inhibit the development or continued use of the property. The board denied Reese's application, and he appealed to court. He asked the court to order the town to rezone the property or to allow him to continue operating his salvage business on the land. The court affirmed the board's de- cision. Reese appealed again. He argued the board's decision wasn't supported by the evidence and was akin to "reverse spot zoning" m and therefore unconsti- tutional. Reese also claimed the court shouldn't have affirmed the board's decision because the township had never passed a comprehensive zoning plan. DECISION: Affirmed. The board properly denied Reese's rezoning application. Zoning commission members personally examined the land before recommending that the board deny Reese's application. The other properties in the area were all vacant or farmed, and therefore consistent with the conserva- tion district. In addition, the high water table made the land unsuitable for most urban uses, including a salvage yard. The township's failure to have a comprehensive zoning plan didn't make a zoning ordinance unconstitutional. see also: Goldberg Companies, Inc. v. Richmond Heights City Council, 690 N.E.2d 510 (1998).