Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/05/2004

Home

z.g. January 10, 2004 -- Page 5 Utbanick sued, and the court ruled in his favor. The court reasoned the final ~pproved plat did not contain any reference to the woodland buffer, so Urbariick had not been put on notice and could not be held to it. ,; TI~? township appealed, arguing Urbanick was required to conform to town- ship ~ning ordinances. DECI~SION: Affirmed. The township could not deny the permit. TYle woodland buffer requirement was not recorded anywhere with the reg- ~ster ~f deeds. Also, the final recorded plat contained no reference Co the wood- land Buffer. Consequently, the woodland buffer was not of record and Urbanick couldinot have had notice of it. ld~banick had the right to rely on the recorded plat, even if the woodland buffer~ restriction was omitted inadvertentlY: E~en i.n the absence of a woodland buffer, Urbanick had to comply with local Zoning ordinances to obtain a permit to install a pool. However, the towns~ip's ordinances permitted installation of a private swimming pool in the rear y~rd. The woodland buffer was not required by the zoning ordinances, but was merely a restrictive condition approved in the tentative preliminary plat. B%ause there was nothing prohibiting Urbanick from installing the pro- posedlpool, the township could not deny his permit. CitatiOn: Urbanick v. Township of Grosse Ile, Court of Appeals of Michigan, No. 238531 (2003). see also: Mumaugh v. McCarley, 558 N.W. 2d 433 (1996). see al~o.· Schadewald v. Brule, 570 N.W. 2d 788 (1997). Code:i-- City seeks to amend zoning code Three out.of five wards approve the change OHIO, ( t 0/29/03) -- Twinsburg had previously enacted a zoning code in 1989. It late~ decided to enact a unified development code. to modify existing law. According to the city charter, 'it was "mandatory that la change] be ap- proved by a majority of all votes cast of--the qualified electors of the City of Twinsburg, and of each ward in which the property so. changed is located." Tl~e unified development code was approved by a majority in wards three, four, ond five, but it did not receive a majority vote in wards one and two. Ggydosh, a local property owner, sued. The court ruled in her favor. The city appealed. DECI, SION: Affirmed. Thee unified development code was not properly enacted and the city ille- gally Was enforcing two different z. oning codes among the five city wards. T15e city charter specifically required a majority vote from each of the five wards~ before any change in zoning use or classification could become effec- tive. Absent any finding the city charter was unconstitutional or invalid, the city had to follow its rules in enactine zoning code changes. 153