Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/04/2004

Home

Page ~ -- September 25,200,4 Z.B. Appeal -- Wal-,Ma~ seeks amendment to site plan Neighborb~g business claims approval is legislative action Citation: S,~£erV~ix ~oldings inc. x Jackson Center Aa'sociares LP, Court of Appeals of Ohio, 12:h App. Dist., C!ermon. r Co., Nos. CA2003-12-105 & CA2003-I2-!iO (2004) OHIO (05/16/04) -- ~Vai-Mart Stores Inc. wanted to demol/sh an e,'dstin~ store iota:ed in a planned developmen~ district and build a new "super center." Atier a planning comrmssion re view and a public h&aring, the township approved the plan as being appropriate for the district. Wal-Mart r. hen requested an amendment to the plan seeing to decrease the area or' the parking lot and increase the area of its store. The township approved Wal-Mart's requested amendment without a hear- ing o~:'a review. ' ' SuperValu sued, and the court ruled in Wal-Mart's favor. S uperValu appealed, arguing the amendment approval was a legislative act .of rezoning requ~ng public notice and planning commission review. DECISION: A ~nned. The township acted administratively in approving the amendment. The property on which Wal-Mart intended to build ,;vas aIready a planned development district. The town had already approved Wal-Marr's site plan. Wal-Mart was seek. ing modifications to the store and parking lot size only. The township determined whether the requested amendment complied w/th the e~sting district standards. Thus, the township was not legislating; it was regulating che subsequent allowed use or development of the property within the ah'eady established district. The decision to approve the amendment did not amount to a legislative rezoning of the property. The town was executing or administering a law, not enacting a new one. see cztso: Board of Township D'~.~smes of Bainbridge Township v. Ftmtime Inc., 5~ Ohio &.3d 106 (1990). ¢ 2904 5ulnlan ~40