Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/07/2014

Home

Zoning Bulletin May 10, 2014 ( Volume 8 I Issue 9 tion of a cemetery as defined under the Resolution, then the Artzs would not qualify for a conditional use permit and could not operate the animal crematory. The Artzs appealed. DECISION: Judgment of Court of Common Pleas affirmed. The Court of Appeals of Ohio held that: (1) the definition of agricul- tural use in the Township's Zoning Resolutions did not encompass the use of property for the operation of an animal crematorium as a permitted principal use; and (2) the operation of an animal crematorium was not a permitted accessory use incidental to the peumitted operation of a dog kennel. Accordingly, the court concluded that the Artzs could not operate an animal crematorium on their property. In so holding, the court acknowledged that the "breeding, raising, and care of dogs" constituted animal husbandry, as that tern was used under Ohio statutory law defining "agriculture." (R.C. 519.01.) However, the court found the Zoning Resolution's broad definition of agriculture did not include the operation of an animal crematorium such that it would be a peinnitted principal use as the Artzs had contended. The court further concluded that the operation of an animal crematory was not a necessary function or normal operation within the agricultural community consis- tent with the purpose of an agricultural district as set forth in the Zoning Resolution. For the same reasons, the court also found that the operation of an animal crematory was not a permitted accessory use "incidental" to the kennel as the Artzs had asserted. Finally, regarding conditional uses, the court agreed with the Artzs that their proposed animal crematorium did not fall within the meaning of a private cemetery as that term was used in the Zoning Resolution. Rather, the court found that the definition of cemetery was focused on the intended use of land for the burial of dead animals and did not apply to the Artzs' proposed use since they did not intend to bury animals. Still, the court also agreed with the Township's determination that the prospective use of an animal crematorium was not listed as a conditional use in the agricul- tural district. Thus, concluded the court, since the operation of an animal crematorium was not a permitted principal or accessory use, and was not listed as a conditional use requiring approval from the Board of Zoning Appeals, the Artzs were not entitled to operate the crematorium. See also: Angels for Animals, Inc. v. Beaver Twp. Bd. of Zoning Ap- peals, 2004-Ohio-7209, 2004 WL 3090174 (Ohio Ct. App. 7th Dist. Mahoning County 2004). © 2014 Thomson Reuters 11