Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/05/2015

Home

December 25, 2014 1 Volume 8 1 Issue 24 Zoning Bulletin provisions as 150.140.4(B)(1) and 150.900.18(B), the Zoning Code require[d] the most restrictive provision to govern." Specifically, section 150.100.5(B) of the Zoning Code stated that "[w]here the conditions imposed by any provision of this Zoning Code upon the use of land, buildings, or structures are either more restrictive or less restrictive than comparable conditions imposed by any other provision of this Zoning Code; or of any other law, ordinance, resolution, rule or regulations of any kind, the regulations that are more restrictive shall govern." In addition, § 150.100.5(C) of the Zoning Code provided that "[i]f the provisions of the Zoning Code are inconsistent with one another, the more re- strictive provision shall control." The court found that § 150.140.4(B)(1) was the more restrictive provision, which had to be applied to the case at hand. The court noted that § 150.140.4(B)(1) permitted Key Ads to improve or alter nonconforming signs only if the use was changed to a use that was permitted in the district in which it was located, or if the Board otherwise approved of the improvement or altera- tion and its cumulative cost did not exceed 50% of the "replacement value" for the sign. In comparison, the less restrictive § 150.900.18(B)(2)(b) and (B)(3) permitted nonconforming signs to be altered by replacing a sign panel if the sign's structure was not changed and the cost of the work did not exceed 50% of the "value" of the sign. Applying § 150.140.4(B)(1) here, the court found that any improvements and alternations to Key Ads' signs could not exceed 50% of the cost to replace the vinyl signs in their current condition (i.e., based on their current value as vinyl signs, not based on their predicted value as electronic changeable copy). Given that the conversion from vinyl to electronic changeable copy panels would cost $200,000, the court found that it was "apparent that the project would exceed 50 percent of the signs' $60,000 to $100,000 replacement value." Therefore, under § 150.140.4(B)(1), the conversion was not permitted. The court concluded that the Board's decision affirming the rejection of Key Ads' application to change the face of its signs from static vinyl panels to electronic changeable copy panels was lawful under the Zoning Code. See also: WCI, Inc. v. Ohio Liquor Control Comm., 116 Ohio St. 3d 547, 2008 -Ohio -88, 880 N.E.2d 901 (2008). Proceedings—After two intervenors file appeal in case, third intervenor files cross-appeal Parties dispute whether the cross-appeal was timely filed under Hawai'i law Citation: Friends of Malcalcilo v. D.R. Horton -Schuler Homes, LLC, 2014 WL 5483460 (Haw. 2014) Hawai'i (10/30/14)—This case addressed a question of first impression: "when must a party that seeks judicial review of an administrative decision in the form of a cross-appeal file a notice of its cross-appeal in circuit court?" 6 © 2014 Thomson Reuters