Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/03/1998

Home

z.g. November 10, 1998 . Page 7 use of the property was a prohibited industrial use. The zoning board conducted a hearing, visited Humeniuk's property, and talked to neighbors about Humeniuk's use of the property. The board affirmed the issuance of Humeniuk's permit. Ward again asked the county to look at Humeniuk's use of the property. The zoning officer refused, saying an investigation had already been conducted and Ward didn't raise any new issues in his request..At another hearing, the board found the zoning officer properly refused to honor Ward's request and that Humeniuk's running of a storage warehouse on his property was a permit- ted use under the zoning ordinance. A trial court upheld the board's rulings, and Ward appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. The board properly refused to look again at Humeniuk's use of the property. A "storage warehouse" was a permitted use in a "farm residential" district. Although the ordinance didn't define "'storage warehouse," its plain meaning didn't exclude the storage of product~ brought to and from the warehouse. The definition of "industrial use".' may have included some of the things that Humeniuk used his property fori but that didn't prohibit such uses in a "farm residential" zone. see also: Sagstetter v. City of St. Paule 529 N.W. 2d 488 (1995). see also: Northwest Residence Inc. v. City of Brooklyn Center, 352 N. W. 2d 764 (]985). Conditional Use m Company wants to build truck terminal near residential area ~ Citation: Structural Sales Cort~oration v. V~llage of Boston Heights, Ohio, 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 97-3530 (1998) The 6th Circuit has jurisdiction over Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee. A trucking company, agreed to buy property in Boston Heights, Ohio, plan- ning to build a truck terminal. The terminal would initially host between 80 and 100 trucks but could have twice that many in the future. The mayor and other village officials encouraged the company to build the terminal. The company applied for a l~ermit, relying on a section of the zoning ordinance for light industrial districts~ The ordinance allowed truck terminals with the village council's "special authority" if access to the premises wouldn't "pass through or be adjacent to a residential district." The trucking company applied for special authority to build the terminal. Concerns about noise, traffic, and the impact on nearby commercial develop- ments were raised at a planning commission meeting. The commission recom- mended that the city council deny special authority because the site was near a residential area. The council didn't immediately vote on the company's request. Instead, it