Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/01/2004

Home

Page (5 -- May 25, 2004 z.g. DECISION: Reversed. Although the church clearly would benefit from having an additional meet* inghouse, there was no evidence its members were unable to engage in wor- ship services -- one aspect of religious exercises -- at the e~sting locations. The existing meetinghouses were not so distant as to result in unreasonable expense or inconvenience to members. Although the current meetinghouses were crowded, there was no indication conditions prevented any members from attending ctmrch. There was no reason to believe the city would not approve an application for a smaller or differently configured building and parking lot that sufficiently addressed the applicable requirements relating to buffers and other forms of impact mitigation. The particular size and design proposed was not required by the church's religious beliefs. Although the church had a strong preference, the city's rejec- tion of the proposal in no way affected church members' beliefs. see also: Shepherd Monressori Center Milan v. Ann Arbor Charter Township, 675 N. !,~/:2d 271 (2003). see also: Powell v. B,mn, 59 P. 3d 559 (2002). Vested Rights ~ Developer argues site plans vested zoning Plans were iticorrectly filed Citation: Eastbrook Farms Inc. v. Ci~, of Springboro, Court of Appeals of Ohio, 12th App. Dist., Warren Co., No. CA2003-08-080 (2004) OHIO (03/22/04) -- Eastbrook Farms Inc. wanted to develop property an- nexed by the City of Springboro in 1967. The property had formerly been within Clearcreek Township. In 1976, Springboro designated the property as a planned unit development. In t978 and 1979, Eastbrook sold portions of its property in accordance with the planned unit development zoning. The portions, totaling 38 acres, contained a bank, day care center, residential subdivision, and medical clinic. In 2000, Eastbrook decided to develop other portions of the property. How- ever, Springboro had adopted a moratorium on approval of any planned unit development. Eastbrook tried to get approval of its site plan as business-zoned property. However, Springboro did not process the plan. Soon thereafter, Springboro amended its planned unit development zoning regulations. Eastbrook sued, and the court ruled in the city's favor. Eastbrook appealed, arguing, because it filed site plans in both Springboro and Clearcreek Township, it had vested rights in the zoning of ,she property before it was amended. DECISION: Affirmed. Eastbrook had no vested rights in the property's prior zoning. 92 ,:¢ 2004- Quinlan ?uoiisnin§ Group. Any reproduciion is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048.