Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/05/1995

Home

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I I November 15, 1995 -- Page 5 coveragelratios, height, and square footage. It explained that without consid- ering these factors, the board could not deny the variance. The l~oard asked the court to reconsider its decision, and nine neighbors I . asked to loin the case. Both requests were denied. The b,Oard and the neighbors then filed separate appeals, which were con- solidated~ The board claimed the court was wrong to find that the board's decision Was not supported by substantial evidence. The neighbors claimed they had 'a right to join the lawsuit because they lived within 300 feet of Davenpo~t's property. DECISION: Reversed in part. The 1 ~.o)ver court improperly reversed the board's decision to deny the vari- ance -- tile denial was reinstated, but Davenport was free to submit revised plans for ~ smaller addition. The lower court properly denied the neighbors' request to,join the appeal. . - '.. The bpard had enough evidence to support denial of'the variance. The city zoning ordinance required that variances not interfere-with neighbors' rights, and. that they be harmonious with the ordinance's intent and purpose. The boardimay not have compared measurements of homes in the area, but it proved--ihrough neighbors' complaints that Davenport's proposed expan- sion would interfere with the neighbors' rights. The court had to respect the board's expertise in zoning matters, even if the evidence supporting its deci- sion was W~eak. The Court could reverse the board's decision only if it was not supported by any evidence. The ne!ghbors could not join the appeal because they f'rled their motion too late. They ,01so failed to prove that the board did not already adequately address their interests, or that the variance would result in reduced property values. Rezoning -- Can Landowner use Election to Rezone Proper~y? State ex rel. Quirke v. Patriarca, 654 _N.E. 2d 136 (Ohio) 1995 Quirke¢owned property in Painesville Township, a political subdivision within Lak~ County, Ohio. He wanted to rezone the property from residential single fam~y to general retail, so he sought approval from the township Zon- ing Comm!ssion. Both the county Planning Commission and the township Zoning Co~rnission recommended approval, but 0uirke withdrew his request before the township Board of Trustees voted.. Severalimonths later, Quirke again requested rezoning for the property, this time from residential single family to restricted retail. The Zoning Com- mission recommended approval, but the Planning Commission recommended denial. TheiTrustees voted to deny the change. Quirke l~resented the township clerk, Patriarca, with an initiative petition signed by ~ore than 800 township voters. The petition sought to amend the township zO~ning resolution to rezone Ouirke's property general retail, and to place the issue on the November 1994 general election ballot. Although the petition hadienough signatures to get the issue on the ballot, Patriarca (advised by the townOhip's lawyer) refused to certify the petition as valid or to give it to