Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/01/2004

Home

Page $ -- May 25, 2004 Z.]3. Zoning Resolution -- Owner claims new resolution serves no legitimate purpose Lots less than 1.5 acres in siz. e cannot be develolJed as single-family residences Citation: Milton v. Williamsburg Township Board of Zoning Appeals, Court of Appeals of Ohio, J2th App. Dist., Cle~nont Co., No. CA2003-04-050 (2004) OHIO (03/22/04) -- In 1976, Milton became the owner of two acres of prop- erty. He divided the property into five parcels. At the time of their creation, all lots conformed to the requirements for development as single-family 10ts. A residential house was built on one of the lots in 19'78, although it was built without a permit. In 1994, the township amended its zoning resolution to require a minimum lot size of 1.5 acres for single-family residences. As a result of the zoning resolution, three of the lots could no longer be used for single-family resi- dences because they were smaller than 1.5 acres. Milton filed an application for a variance to develop the remaining lots into single-family residences. However, the variance was denied. Milton sued, and the court ruled in favor of the township. Milton appealed, arguing the township's prohibition on developing the lots failed to serve a legitimate governmental purpose. DECISION: Affirmed. There was a legitimate governmental purpose advanced by prohibiting the owner of nonconforming lots from using those lots in accordance with their nonconforming stares. An urban planner testified that permitting a lot size smaller than 1.5 acres would increase population density and require greater costs and expense to the township to provide public services such as police, fire and emergency ser- vices; road maintenance; snow removal; water; and sewer maintenance. Furthermore, the urban planner testified smaller lot sizes would compro- mise the character and nature of the township and lower land values. Many of these concerns, including increased, traffic congestion, mainte- nance of the single-family nature of the neighborhood, and increased popula- tion density have been found to be legitimate governmental concerns justify- ing single-family classification. Consequently, the zoning resolution served a valid public interest. ~ee cdso: zVot'rhauzpron Bui~din~ Co. v. Board of Zonin,~ Appeat~ of Sharon Towna'hip, 671_ N.E. 2d 1309 (t996). see ~.zlso: Tczhoe-$ierra Preservation Cram. oil inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 535 U.S. 302 (2002). 94 ,cD 2004 Quinlan PuDfishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please ,:all (617) 54.2-0048.