Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/07/2005

Home

Page 6 -- May 25, 2005 g.g, one of his perfoi-mers, see also: Baby Dolls Topless Saloons [nc. v. City of Dallas, 295 F. 3d 471 (2003). see also: City of Los Angetes v. Alameda Books [nc., 535 U.S. 425, 122 S. Cr. 1728, 152 LEd. 2d 670 (2002). Commercial Use -- Building design looks like commercial storage building Zoning.inspector issues citation for commercial use Citation: Moreland v. Salyer, Court of Appeals of Ohio, 5th App. Dist., Knox County, No. 2004~CA-14 (2005) OHIO (04/13/05) -- The Hilliar Townslxip Zoning Inspector cited Salyer for failing to secure a permit for construction of a commercial storage building on his property. The zoning inspector determined Salyer's building was a commer- cial structure not permitted, by the local zoning ordinances3 The zoning inspector stated the citation was'based on:. the app'earance of the building. The building was 100-feet long and 30-feet wide, with 22 different rooms that were approximately 8-feet wide. Each of these rooms had doors with an individual lock, and the doors were the size of normal garage doors. Also, Salyer advertised a business known as Central Ohio Storage. The address for Central Oh/o Storage was for another building on the property perhaps 250 feet away. The zoning inspectoq ~ued to remove the structure, and the court ruled in h/s favor .... Salyer appealed. DECISION: Reversed. There was no evidence to support the court's finding' the building was a commercial building. Salyer testified he operated a commercial rental and storage business at another site, bi~t did not use the facility in question for rental or storage. He' claimed he used it only for storing his own agricultural equipment. A state statute stat&d "no township shall prohibit the use of any land for agriculture purposes or the construction or use of buildings or structures incidental, to the use of land for agricultural purposes." Salyer's building had individual bays, but the walls were removable to pro- vide more flexibility for the use of the space. Salyer kept tractors, a pressure washer, and an auxiliary generator there, as well as table saws, planers, and edgers he used in constructing other buildings on the property. The court deterrrdned the appearance.of the building was not the control- ling factor. Also, the court c6ncluded it wa~ irrelevant that the building could be used potentially for commercial purposes. 9O © 2005 Quinfan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048.