Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/07/2005

Home

Page2--June 10,2005 ZoB. Ordinance --~ Landowner says ordinance is too vague Claims 'repair shop' and 'storage shed' inadequately defined Citation: Hutsell v. Jefferson Co~mty Board of Zoning Appeals, Court of Appeals of Tennessee, at Knoxville, No. E2004-OO968-COA-R34CV (2005) TENNESSEE (04/26/05) -- Hutsell received a building permit to construct an accessory storage building'on his property. The property was zoned A-l, A~m4- cultural-Forestry. The designated uses for the A-1 district were "single family houses, duplexes, agricultural uses, and salesincluding barns, storage sheds ... repair shops." Hutsell stated he intended to place hay, antique cars, and storage in the building. However, he used the building for warehousing tractor-trailer loads of doors and other materials for his retail building supplY store. When Hutsell applied for the building permit, he never told the zoning compfJ~ance officer he would be warehousing doors for his commercial business. After receiving complaints, the Jefferson County Board of Zoning Appeals ? found Hutsell in violation of the local zoning ordi/mnce..~ Hutsell sued, and the court ruled in favor of the board'.' HutselI appealed, arguing the ordinance's use of "repair Shop" and."stor- age shed" were too vague to be enforced. DECISION: A filmed, The ordinance was not unconstitutionally vague. Zoning ordinances were construed using the same principles employed to Construe statutes. If an ordinance was so vague that persons of common intel- ligence had to guess at i'ts meaning, it would not pass constitutional scrutiny. However, a land-use regulation was legal if it could be given a reasonable construction. Courts did not void enactments on vagueness grounds merely because they could have been drafted with greater readability. A zoning ordinance's construction and application to a particular circum- stance were questions for local officials to decide. The ordinance used ordinary language capable of ordinary and common'understanding. The terms "storage shed" and "repair shop" were common, everyday terms, and when considered in the context of the ordinance, the intent was clear. It was appropriate for the board to take into account any misrepresenta- tions Hutsel'l made in disclosing the nature of the proposed building and its intended use when obtaining initial approval. Hutsell admitted he attempted to have the property rezoned in order to accommodate his warehousing purposes. He also admitted he claimed to the board that the building was used as a repair shop in order to fit within the A-1 classification. Hutsell's own testimony suggested he understood the meaning and intent of the ordinances. 94 © 2005 Quinlan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048.