Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/01/2004

Home

Z.B. March 10, 2004 -- Page 5 land use development pattern. Based on the board's recent decisions, the com- mission found the pattern of approved development indicated a trend toward non-residential uses. While the commission stated the project was consistent with the surround- ing uses, it did not state the project was consistent with the existing general plan for that specific property. Importantly, the project was not consistent with the site's existing zoning classification. The commission only found the pro- posed veterinary hospital would be consistent with the existing zoning and surrounding area after the zoning had been changed from rural residential tO industrial park. The board was entitled to disregard the commission's findings and recom- mendations. The board, not the commission, was the entity authorized to make changes to the general plan and the zoning ordinance. see also: Cadiz. Land Co. v. Rail Cycle, 83 Cal. App.4th 74 (2002). see also: Johnston v. Sonoma Co~mty Agric~.ltural Preservation & Open Space District, 100 Cal. App.4th 973 (2002). Statutory Powers -- Board of zoning appeals restricts its own powers Applicant complains board has no power to do so Citation: North Fork Properties v. Bath Township, Co,trr of App_eals of Ohio, 9th App. Dist., Sttmmit Cot. tory, No. 21597 (2004) OHIO (01/14/04) -- North Fork Properties requested a zoning variance to build an office complex in a residential district. The board of zoning appeals denied the application, stating it did not have the authority to permit a use prohibited by a recent Bath Township Zoning Resolution. The resolution stated the board could allow no use pro- hibited by it. Under state law, "the township board of zoning appeals may ... authorize, upon appeal, in specific cases, such variance from the terms of the zoning resolution as will not be contrary to the public interest." North Fork sued, arguing state law gave the board of zoning appeals the authority to grant use variances, and it could not be limited by a resolution. The court ruled in North Fork's favor. The township appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. Because the resolution was more stringent than state law, it was invalid and unenforceable. The power of a board of zoning appeals to grant a var/ance was derived from statute and any provisions of a township zoning resolution purporti_ng to create more stringent or liberal standards for the granting of a variance than those under state law were invalid. They were invalid because such self-re- strictions exceeded the legislative authority delegated to township boat'ds of zoning appeal.