Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/05/1995

Home

Z.B. June 1995 -- Page 3 L DECISION:. Affirmed} in favor of the neighbors. .. Bouie v~lated the zoning ordinance, so the trial court properly ordered it to stop usin~ the property as a truck terminal. Bouie's~roposed uses were not allowed in the general business orhighway commercial ~ones. They Were not permitted as special uses either because they were not "similar and compatible" with the permitted uses. Boule admitted operating a ~uck terminal, which was allowed in the industrial zone only. The ordinance stated that the purpose of the industrial zone was to "provide lands for ... activities ... whose external effects [would] be felt to some degree by surrounding idistricts." Rezoning ~ City Says Landowner Can't Sue Over Failure to Rezone Perrico Property Systems v. City of Independence, 644 N.E.2d 714 (Ohio) lr1994 Perrico ~roperty Systems Owned undeveloped property next to an inter- state highwa.~ in the city of Independence, Ohio. The property was zoned, single- family residential, which restricted its use to single-family homes that had lots with at least il00 feet of frontage. Perrico o~aimed that the property could not be developed for single-family use because !t was too close to the highway and its terrain was difficult. Perrico also said theiprope, rty was not economically marketable as currently zoned. In 1988, ~he city council passed an ordinance that would rezone the prop- erty to a "sit!gle family cluster district," which allowed multifamily, attached single-famil~, and cluster homes. However, the voters rejected the-ordinance when it was ~resented to them as city law required. Perrico st~ed the city, claiming the zoning ordinance was unconstitutional. It asked the dourt to declare that the land could not be used in an economically viable manner under single-family residential zoning and to rezone the.prop- erty to permi! a mid-rise, multifamily development. The city asked the court to dismiss the .63se. It argued .Perrico had no case because the city had not taken any final actlon on the rezoning and Perrico had to exhaust its administrative remedies. It a~lso argued Perrico knew of the zoning restrictions when it bought the property., After the ~court granted the city judgment without a trial, Perrico appealed. DECISION: Reversed and returned to the lOwer court. The trial icourt improperly granted the city judgment. The case was sent back to the trial court to decide whether the ordinance was unconstitutional as applied to P6~rrico's property. When th~ voters rejected the rezoning, this was a final action by the city that adversely affected Perrico's interests in building a multifamily develop- ment. Pemcq d~d not have to exhaust its administrative remedies because there were none-av~dable. The city could not rezone the property administratively; it had to enact~egislation and get it passed by the voters. Despite the city's sug- gestion that lIerrico seek an administrative variance, this would not solve the