Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/01/2004

Home

Page 2--June 10, 2004 plan Approval -- Board approves new pharmacy Will be part of bigger development plan Citation: The Ci~. of Gahanna v. Petrzizietlo, Court of Appeals of Ohio, loth App. Dist., Franklin Co., No. 03A?-360 (2004) OHIO (4/27/04) -- Petruziello wanted to develop a 1.5 acre parcel as a phar- macy. The pharmacy would include a drive-through window and be part of a future larger development including shops and other businesses. The site for the planned pharmacy was part of a larger 12-acre development site that im- posed certain commun/ty development standards on the property. Over much community opposition, the city board of zoning appeals granted the permits necessary to build the pharmacy. Neighboring property owners sued, arguing the board Md no power to alter an exrsting zoning code or vary from the code's provisions, and that it did so by approving the planned pharmacy even though it was part of a larger planned development. The court ruled in their favor. The board appealed, arguing it had the legal authority to approve the project. DE CISION: Reversed. The board had the authority to approve the applications because the board merely complied with the existing code. Under the ordinance, developed land had to be five acres or more. Here, the planned development included the entire site of 12 acres, not only the contested pharmacy. The drive-through prescription pick-up window was a conditional use that could have been approved or disapproved notwithstanding the approval or disapproval of the overall plan of development. Consequently, the board could correctly grant a permit before the entire project was approved. The pharmacy's planned design complied with city development standards. In particular, it contained varying roofiines construction with wood and brick mater/als, and an exterior brick finish. Finally, the pharmacy building was not going to be developed in isolation, but fa[her as part of the overall development of the entire site, Milch would include other tenants. Thus, the entire project could be considered for approval. see also: Baker v. State Personnel Board of Review, 710 N.E. 2d 706 (1999). see also: Jim's Steak House. Inc. v. Cleveland, 688 N.E. 2d 506 (1.998). Permit -- Property owner claims tense of letter makes it ambigutms Was informed no permit "will be issued" Citation: A~jeh v. The Village of Ottawa Hills, Court of Appeal~ of' Ohio, 6th App. Dist., Lz~cas Co., No. L-05]]59 (2004.) OHIO 14/16/04) -- AIjeh filed an apptication for a zoning permit with the 96 © 2004 Quinian Pui~lishing Group. ,Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048.