Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/03/1998

Home

Page 2 -- November 10, 1998 Z.B. Rezoning m Can court order county to grant rezoning request? Citation: Mehlhorn v. Pima County, Court of Appeals of Arizona, Div. 2, Dept. B, No. 2 CA-CV 97-0229 (1998) A group owned a 4-acre parcel zoned light industrial in Pima County, Ariz. To fulfill a prospective buyer's condition, the owners applied to rezone the prop- erty general industria/so the buyer could use the property for automobile salvage. The property was suitable for either light or general industrial use under the county's comprehensive plan. None of the neighboring owners objected to the rezoning, and the county planning division recommended approving the rezoning. The zoning commission unanimously recommended that the county board of supervisors approve the rezoning. ' One of the supervisors expressed concern that other auto salvage yards in the area had expanded beyond the 2-acre maximum. The board denied the owners' request. The owners appealed to court, claiming the board's decision was arbitrary. They asked the court to order the county to rezone the property. The county claimed the court'had no authority to grant a rezoning because that would violate the state constitution's separation of powers provision. The owners argued the court could "override" the board's decision because the board had no basis for denying the rezoning r. equest. The court agreed with the owners. It ordered the board to pass an ordinance rezoning the property. The county appealed. DECISION: Reversed. The thai court didn't have the authority to order the board to rezone the property. The decision to rezone was a legislative decision; the board's motives were irrelevant. So long as it was appropriate for the property, it was the county's prerogative not the owners' or the cburt's m to choose the applicable clas- sification. The court couldn't substitute its judgment for that of county legisla- tive authorities; it wasn't equipped to act as a "super zoning commission." The owners didn't challenge the pi:operty's current zoning or allege any taking or other deprivation. In fact, the'9 conceded the existing zoning wasn't unreasonable and didn't reduce their ec6nomic interests. see also: City of Phoenix v. Oglesby, 537 P2d 934 (1975). Nuisance Barking dog's owner aplSeals conviction for creating nuisance Citation: City of Cuyahoga Falls v. Vogel, Court of Appeals of Ohio, 9th Appellate Dist., Summit County, No. 18826 (1998) Vogel lived in the city of Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio. One day, his neighbor awoke at 10:30 a.m. to the sound of a dog barking. The dog continued to bark @?