Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/05/2015

Home

December 25, 2014 1 Volume 8 1 Issue 24 Zoning Bulletin preempt the Ordinance because: (1) the Legislature had expressly allowed lo- cal regulation of fames and thus had not expressed a clear intent to occupy the field; and (2) the Town's Ordinance did not frustrate the purpose of the Act. Again, the Agricultural Protection Act prohibits a municipality from determining that a farm's method of operations violates a local ordinance if the farm has used "best management practices." Here, the court found that Dubois' operation was not a "faint" for the purpose of the Agriculture Protection Act, and Dubois had made no showing that it was following best practices when it violated the Ordinance by failing to share certain information and allow Town representative inspections. The court also concluded that the Solid Waste Act did not preempt the Ordinance. Again, the Solid Waste Act prohibits municipal ordinances that are stricter with respect to solid waste facilities than those contained in the Solid Waste Act and the rules adopted under that Act. Here the court found that stan- dards in the Ordinance were not stricter than those in the Act. The Ordinance required solid waste facilities to obtain conditional use permits, "just as solid waste facilities [were] required to obtain licenses under the Act." The court also found that the Ordinance's definitions were not inconsistent with those in the Act, as the Ordinance and the Act defined "solid waste facility" and solid waste "processing facility" almost identically. The court further found that, with similar standards and definitions, the Ordinance's provisions did not frustrate the purpose of the Act. Case Note: In concluding that Dubois' operation was not a "farm" for the purpose of the Agriculture Protection Act, the court noted that the Ordinance defined a farm as pro- ducing "agricultural products." The court found that Dubois did not produce "agricul- tural products" on site, but instead imported tons of waste materials. Moreover, the court opined that "[c]reating a product like compost, which may be used by landscap- ers, home gardeners, and perhaps farmers, [did] not make Dubois a farm' for the purposes [of the Act's] protection." Nonconforming Use—Billboard company seeks to change nonconforming signs from vinyl to digital Company and City dispute which zoning provision applies and whether zoning code allows alternations sought Citation: Key Ads, Inc. v. Dayton Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 2014 -Ohio -4961, 2014 WL 5794546 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. Montgomery County 2014) 4 © 2014 Thomson Reuters