Laserfiche WebLink
ti <br /> I <br /> September 10, 2016 1 Volume 10 1 Issue 17 Zoning Bulletin ;. <br /> k C <br /> Township's Board of Zoning Appeals ("BZA") approved the CUP, <br /> with nine specified conditions. <br /> Southside operated the Class IV composting facility at the site, but <br /> never initiated operation of the construction and demolition debris fa- <br /> cility(perhaps because its joint venture with Kurtz Brothers,Inc.never <br /> materialized). In August 2014, more than two years after the CUP was <br /> approved by the BZA, Southside was informed, via a notice of zoning <br /> violation, that the CUP was void due to its failure to implement the <br /> F <br /> uses approved—namely the construction and demolition debris facility. <br /> Southside appealed the zoning violation notice to the BZA. Southside <br /> argued that it had implemented the CUP since it was actually operating <br /> a Class IV composting facility at the site. <br /> The BZA affirmed the decision of the zoning inspector to issue the <br /> violation notice. <br /> The BZA pointed to Section 503 of the Township's zoning ordi-- <br /> nance,which provides: "A conditional use approval shall be deemed to <br /> authorize only one particular conditional use and said approval shall <br /> become void if the use is not implemented within two (2) years from <br /> the date of the approval by the [BZA]." The BZA found that Section <br /> 503 permitted only a single conditional use—which here included two <br /> activities—the operation of a composting facility and a construction <br /> and demolition debris facility.Failure to implement the latter operation <br /> voided the CUP,found the BZA. <br /> Southside then appealed the BZA's decision to trial court. The trial <br /> court affirmed the BZA's decision, <br /> Southside again appealed. <br /> DECISION: Judgment of Court of Common Pleas affirmed. <br /> The Court of Appeals of Ohio found that the BZA's interpretation of <br /> Section 503 of the Township's zoning ordinance was "logical." The <br /> court found that nothing in Section 503 prohibited a single conditional <br /> use from covering several activities. Since Southside had failed to <br /> implement one of those activities—the construction and debris demoli- <br /> tion facility—then, in accordance with Section 503, the CUP became <br /> void for failure to implement the use within two years, concluded the <br /> court. <br /> Case Note: <br /> The court additionally found that Southside had not complied with conditions <br /> of the CUP—which was a prerequisite for finding the CUP had been <br /> implemented—thus rendering the CUP void for faiture to timely implement. <br /> 8 ©2016 Thomson Reuters <br /> I <br /> r <br /> h <br />