Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/05/2015

Home

January 10, 2015 1 Volume 9 1 Issue 1 Zoning Bulletin the property owner, and looking at the entire context of the ordi- nance, the court found that the proposed helipad fit the C.C.O's definitions of "accessory use or building." The helipad would be built on the same lot or parcel as the principal use, and a helipad was customarily incidental to the principal use of the property, a hospital (where as 88% of hospitals in the City's metropolitan area had helipads). Accordingly, the Supreme Court of Ohio concluded that a helipad was a permitted accessory use because it was custom- arily incident to a hospital, which was a permitted use under the Code, and thus the Hospital was entitled to construct. See also: University Circle, Inc. v. City of Cleveland, 56 Ohio St. 2d 180, 10 Ohio Op. 3d 346, 383 N.E.2d 139 (1978). Proceedings—Landowners ask court to grant equitable relief, prohibiting town from enforcing ordinance after it already issued related building permit Town says court action must be dismissed because landowners did not exhaust administrative remedies Citation: Dembiec v. Town of Holderness, 2014 WL 5859514 (N.H. 2014) NEW HAMPSHIRE (11/13/14)—This case addressed the issues of: (1) whether a zoning board of adjustment has the jurisdiction to decide a municipal estoppel claim; and (2) under what circum- stances landowners are not required to exhaust administrative reme- dies before seeking judicial review. The Background/Facts: Daryl and Marcy Dembiec (the "Dem- biecs") owned property in the Town of Holderness, New Hampshire (the "Town"). Prior to October 2011, the only structure on that prop- erty was a two-story boathouse with living quarters on the second floor. The Dembiecs sought to construct a single-family home on their property. In October 2011, the Dembiecs obtained from the Town a permit for construction of a single-family home on their property. 8 © 2015 Thomson Reuters