Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/01/1997

Home

Z.B. ~ February 25, 1997 --Page 7 so the ordinance applied. The buyers asked a court to review the board's decision and declare the facility fell under the statute's agricultural purposes exemption. The court upheld the board's decision. It found the hog-confinement facility would not be an agricultural use, and it would be separate from any agricultural use the buyers already undertook (e.g., corn and soybean farming). Therefore, the ordinance iapplied. The buyers appealed. DECISION: Reversed. The buyers didn't need a special exception permit because their proposed facility fell un'~der the statute's agricultural purposes exemption. In arguinglthe opposite, the county relied on a 1971 case in which the court said an activity had to be independently organized as an agricultural use to fall under the exemption. The county apparently didn't believe raising hogs was itself considered an agricultural activity. Based on :,.a later case, however, the hog-confinement, facility was an agricultural activity. The court in the later case viewed agriculture as "the art or science of cultiyating the ground, including harvesting of crops and management of livestock.'VMoreover, the statute referred to the agricultural nature of "buildings or Structures," which the proposed facility would clearly be. The county argued that to fall under the exemption, applicants' proposed agricultural uses had to be independent from their owners' existing agricultural uses. This interPretation would improperly require investigation into the people or entities ope~rating the uses, not just the proposed uses themselves. Farmegg ~roducts Inc. v. Humboldt County, 190 N. W. 2d 454 (1971). Application ---- Did board hold wrong type of hearing? Adelman Real Estate Co. v. Gabanic, 672 N.E. 2d 1087 (Ohio) ]-996 Adelman Real Estate Company asked the Board of Zoning Appeals for a conditional-us~e permit to run a retail auto business in Chester Township, Ohio. As required by law, the board held a hearing. Attendees ',were all sworn in. Several residents expressed concern about traffic congestion and safety and pedestrian safety. Others said they were concerned about how a new car lot would affect snow removal, the overall character of th~ community and emergency access. Adelman did not have an opportunity to. question the residents. In response, Adelman said it would add landscaping to act as a buffer between its proposed business and the adjacent lot, and a split-rail fence to deter people f~om parking in the adjacent property and walking across a busy driveway. The ~ompany also explained how it would provide emergency access. The board denied the permit. Adelman appealed the denial in court, arguing it was entitled io a trial-type hearing at which it could cross-examine those who testified againsl granting the permit. It said the board should not have considered the residents' ~estirnony. As a result, the evidence did not support its decision