Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/02/2004

Home

July ~ 2004 DeTray's changes had to be relevant to and resolve the disputed conditions in the previous application. DeTray could have substantially changed N.s revised development appli- cation to ameliorate the adverse impazts the original conditional use perrmt conditions were designed to correct. However, he chose not to do so. On the contrary, the increased density of his revised proposal exacerbated the nega- tive impacts the conditiona/ use permit's road and trail conditions were. de- signed to mitigate. Alth6ugh DeTray made a substantial number of changes to his plan, any inquiry had to focus on the qualitative nature of those changes, not simply the quantity. see ~ffso: HJS De','. Inc. v. Pierce Count, 6i P. 3d 1141 (2003). see ah'o: Cio of' Universir3., Place v. McGuire, 30 P. 3d 453 (2001). Ordinance -- Environmental concerns create two-acre requirement Based on econotnics, developer asks to invalidate ordinance Citation: J~zylin investments [nc. v. Tillage of ~kIore[ and Hills, C°urr of Appeals of Ohio, 8th Ap?. Dist., Cuyahogc~ Co., No. 82739 (2004.) OHIO (05/27/0% -- Jaylin investments lnc. wanted to develop a subdivision with a lot size less than the two-acre minimum required under the zoning code. The two-acre requirement was part of a 1973 comprehensive land use plan designed to protect a scenic fiver basin as a natural and cultural resource. Jaylin sued to invalidate the two-acre requirement, and the court ruled in its rayon The village appealed, arguing Jaykin failed to address environmental con- cerns regarding the river basin whkn it asked the court to invalidate the two- acre requirement. DECISION: Reversed. Jaylin did not prove its case. Jaylin's testimony regarding economic feasibility did not invalidate the village's environmental concerns or otherwise prove beyond fair debate that the village's two-acre loc requirement bore no substantial relationship to the public health, safety, or welfare of the community. Jay[in testified building 29 homes was the minimum necessary to be cost effective. It a~so testified the imp~ict on the river.basin would be very small without g ' _otn~ into an,/detail re,_,ardin~ environmental impact. However, Jayiin did eot allege d~e ordinance constituted a raking of its property. Vv'id'mut more, it could not be said Jayiin demonstrated beyond fair debate that the two-acre zoning ordinance as applied to this particular parcel of property was ,_mco~lsrirutional. 0 200'~ 7~uinial~ o,.~sfisnmg :1,ouo. ~',*. :eoroducdon :s orol~ib~teo. For more n[ormadon ~tease call :o~'~, 542-0048. 76