Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/02/2005

Home

7~.B. April 25, 2005 -- Page 7 The only evidence in the record of any potential for vermin, disease, fumes, or odor came from the statement of one witness. The witness said he had been caught in traffic near another mulch-processing plant and had experienced discomfort because of the odors. However, there was no evidence Smith's operation was similar in terms of its processing methods, the varieties of mulch processed, or the size of the operation. Also, there was no evidence of any problem with odors or fumes for the approximately three years Smith operated the mulch-prOCessing operation prior to the hearing. Ultimately, the commission fa/led to support its claim. xee alxo: Campion v. Board of Aldermen, 859 A.2d 586 (2004). xee alxo: Oakbridge/Rogers Avenue Realty LLC v. Planning and Zoning Board, 826 A.2d 1232 (2003). Ordinance -- Zoning code bans sale of motor vehicles Garage wants to sell cars from its property Citation: Machnics v. Sloe, Court of Appeals of Ohio, ]]th App. Dist., Geauga Co,tory, No. 2004-G-2554 (2005) OHIO (03/04/05) ~ Sloe owned property he purchased in 1977 from Arnold. At that time, the property operated as a service garage subject to a conditional-use permit that prohibited the sale of motor vehicles. Sloe continued to operate the garage after he purchased the property. After years of running the automotive service business, Sloe started selling cars and storing them outside on his property. The township zoning inspector sued to stop Sloe's use of the property as a car lot. The court ruled in his favor, finding the sale of motor .vehicles was prohibited within the township by local zoning ordinances.' Sloe appealed, arguing the township could not completely prohibit a specific use. DECISION: Althaned. The township's power to regulate uses included the power to prohibit them. Under state law, a township could regulate uses within its limits. Impor- tantly, Sloe presented no evidence the township failed to consider the relevant circumstances, including the locality of the land and its surroundings, in enact- ing the prohibition on the commercial sale of new and used motor vehicles. As such, the prohibition was presumed to be reasonable and related to the public health, safety, or general welfare of the Oommunity. When Sloe bought the property in 1977, it operated under a conditional variance prohibiting the sale of vekicles. Sloe never appealed this prohibition. [n 2000, he did apply for a variance to sell vehicles, but then withdrew his application before a decision was made. Consequently, Sloe no longer Could claim he should be allowed to sell.~,vehicles on the property. 2005 Quinlan Publishing Group, Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542.0048. 119