Laserfiche WebLink
1.g. <br /> <br />December 10,. 2002 -- Page 7 <br /> <br /> Conditional Use Permit --Trucldng business <br />Neighbor's objections <br />OHIO (10/28/02) -- The Cadwalladers owned and operated a .trucking buSi- <br />ness On property located directly behind property owned' by Boothbys in an <br />area zoned "A-I" a~m-icultural. The Cadwalladers' lot wa~ c.0.. nnected to a pub- <br />lic road by a gravel lane several hundred feet long. <br /> Since 1995, the Cadwalladers Md.stored their.trucks and'equipment on this <br />property, and-. it Was' noted that the trucks regularly traveled .to and from. the <br />property' six days a week .... <br /> The Boothbys. complained about'the dust and ~raffic, and the Cadwalladers <br />responded by filing for conditional, use permit as a home occupation for their <br />property. In the alternative, they applied for a variance from the permitted uses <br />in that area. : <br /> The Board of Zoning APpeals ganted the conditional use Permit, and-the <br />Boothbys appealed. The common pleas court affirmed, determining the board <br />properly interpreted the zoning resolution and properlY granted'the conditional <br />use permit. <br /> The Boothbys appealed; claiming that the COurt erred when. it found the <br />Cadwalladers' business qualified, as a home occupation under the zoning <br />regulations. <br /> <br />DECISION: Affh'med. <br /> The conditional use permit was properly ~anted. · <br /> State law provided a very broad definition of "home 0ccupation~' andgave <br />a list of examples, which were not limiting and exclusive. The board and the <br />lower court did not err in finding that Cadwalladers' lzucking business was a <br />home occupation. <br /> Further, there were other possible explanations for the dust problems expe- <br />rienced by the Boothbys. There were farms in the area, and the dust.could have <br />come from plowing and other agricultural activities. <br /> <br />Citation: Boothby v. Wdliamsburg Township Board of Zoning Appeals, Court of <br />Appeals of Ohio, 12th App. 'Dist., Clermont County; No. CA2002-02-009 (2002). <br /> <br />see also: Cash v. Brookshire United Methodist Church, 573 N.E.2d 692 (1988). <br /> <br />Taking -- City denies mobile home park permit . ' · <br />Owner claims denial was based on, among other .things, religious and racial <br />discrimination <br /> <br />TEXAS (10/28/02) -- Sadeghian ow.ned land once used as a mobile home <br />park. The city denied Sadeghian's permit application to operate the mobile <br />home park after he failed to add certain, items to his property required'under <br />city ordinances. The items included paved:roads, fire hydrants, and improved <br />water lines. <br /> <br />a9 <br /> <br /> <br />