Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/02/2003

Home

g,g. DeCember 10, 2002- Page 3 landfill, also owned by BFI. Bigfoot'Run I was closedin 1999,but remained zoned SD, a solid waste district. When B igfoot Run I closed, BFI expressed intentions to_purchase Clarke's parcel and an adjoining parcel and ultimately develop the Bigfoot Run ri sam, tary landf'fll. BFI filed an application to rezone the properties from Ri to sD. The Board of County Commissioners rejected the application, however. BFI tided a complaint, alleging the R1 zoning designation was unconstitu- tional and the intended solid waste disposal fac/lity constituted a reasonable use of the property. The board filed a motion for. summary jUdgment.. The court determined the R1 designation deprived Clarke and BFI- of any economically viable use for the properties, and declared the classification was therefore unreasonable, arbitrary, and unconstitutional. The court also decided the intended use.as a solid waste disposal facility would constitute a reasonable use of the property. The Board of CommisSioners appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. There was ample evidence to support the lower court's decision. Here', the court noted that, although-there were residential properties in the general area, there were also properties in the area devoted .to mineral extrac- tion and heavy industry. These-properties were different from nearby residen- tial properties in that their unique characteristics, made them Unsuitable fOr residential use. The BFI parcel was steeply sloped with limited road access. The topsoil had been stripped and was thus not suitable for septic systems. The Clarke parcel was located next to Bigfoot Run I,. making it less saleable for residential development. Therefore, the rural residential classification was.un- reasonable. Further, a land use. expert testified the Ri zoning classification did not sub- stantially advance any legitimate, government interest. Citation: Clarke vs. Board of County Commissioners of Warren County, Ohio, Court of Appeals of Ohio, t2th. App, Dist., Warren COunty, No. CA2001-12-110 (2002). See also: Valley Auto Lease of Chagrin Falls v. AubuTM Township Board of Zoning Appeals, 527 N.E. 2d 825 (1988). Transitional. Honsing -- Neighbor objects to Shelter.facility Was zoning 'official's opinion legally binding? NORT~ CAROLINA (! 1/05/02) ~ The Rescue Mission, a_charitable orgam~ zation, made a. proposal to build a residential facility for women and-children on a site located in an area known as Historic Oakwood. - Jones, a neighbor, and the Society for the Preservation of I-Iistoric Oak-w°od opposed the development. When the Rescue Mission went to the Board:of: Adjustment for site plan approval for the project as a "hotel,', Jones and' Oakwood appealed to the board for an interpretation of the local' code.