Laserfiche WebLink
Page 6 -- October i0, '2004 <br /> <br />Z.B. <br /> <br /> Conditional Use Permit--Affected property owner skips hearing <br /> Sues over ,zoning decision upon return from Florida <br /> Cixwion: ~rau~' v. ?,~r-in-Ba? Towns'hip 3oard q? Zoning and Appea&, Court <br /> qfAppe-ais q?Ohio, drh App. Dist., Ottawa Co., zVo. OT-04-OIj (2004) <br /> <br /> OHIO (09/03/04) -- Blumensaadt sought a conditional use permit so that she <br /> could continue her bed and bre~icfasr operation. <br /> Kraus's property was contiguous to Blumensaadt's property. Kraus opposed <br /> the application. However, Kraus did not participate in the hearing regarding the <br /> appiicarion because he was residing in his winter home in Florida. He did send <br />a letter opposing the permit, which was submitted co the board ar the hearing. <br /> The board granted the conditional use perrmt ,for a bed and breakfast. <br /> When he returned from Florida, K, raus sued. The court ruled in his favor. <br /> B[umensaadt appealed, arguing Kraus did nor have standing to appeal <br /> when he did not attend the hearing on the permit. <br /> DECISION: Reversed. <br /> Kraus did not have standing co ~ue. <br /> Under state [aw, property owners had to fulfill certain requirements before <br />[hey could sue regarding a land use decision that affected their property. Oth- <br />erwise, they were left with no redress. <br /> While I<kaus was a contiguous properv owner whose property rights would <br />have been negatively and. uniquely affected by the zoning change, he failed to <br />personally appear wkh counsel at ~he bearing on the matter and did not indicate <br />his intent to appeal the board's decision if ir was unfavorable to his position. <br />see also: Midwest Fire,,vorks P/am¢~cruring Co. v. Deerfield Township Board <br />Of Zonin.~ Appeais, 9] Ohio S~.2d ~74 (200~). <br />see also.' Boo, rd ~t' Truxmes of Jefferson Township v. Petitioners for <br />Incorpo'rarion o/'rhe PTila,ge of Holiday Cie 70 Ohio &.Sd 36S (I994). <br /> <br />Master Plan ~ Settlement agreement binds future township boards <br />Amertds masrer l~tan to allow a ztew raanufactured home communiU <br />somedme in the J~rure <br />Citation: Inverness Mobile Home Communi~ Ltd. v. Bedfbrd Township, Court <br />o/' A~peais of Michigan, No. 236740 (2004) <br /> <br />MICHIG, .N (08/10/04) fnvemess Mobile Home Co~unky L~d. sought re- <br />zoning of a vacant parcel of [and in order to expand ks existing mobile home <br />park. Bedford Township denied the application, and Inverness sued. <br /> Both sides negotiated a seatemem o~' abe lawsuit. A consenrjud~ent was si~ed <br />:hat stated the townshp master pian would be ~ended ro ~low a new mamufac~ed <br />home ,~,om~munirv on 3 &fferenr p~ece of property ro be ~dentified at a later dare. <br /> ~ ~ e ,/ears iacel', inverness ' - '"'" ' ' ' <br /> <br />146 <br /> <br /> <br />