Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/06/2006

Home

February 10, 2006 -- Page 3 approvals. Ultimately, the county denied Nelson's request, finding Nelson's plan did not fit in with the county's comprehensive plan. Nelson sued, and the court ruled in favor of the county. Nelson appealed, arguing it was impossible to believe the development of 10 homes on her property would be incompatible with nearby agricultural uses. DECISION:eX tanned. There was nothing unreasonable about the county wanting to keep its lines of development distinct. There was conflicting evidence on the issue of compatibility. For example, a real estate broker who testified for Nel~son stated the development of the prop- erty would have no adyerse effect on surrounding farming operations. It would also add to the surrounding land's economic value. However, the broker did acknowledge that conflicts between residential uses and farm uses often exist, involving such issues as noise, dust, traffic, and chemical spraying. Although the fact the land was heavily wooded would pro- vide a buffer, there was testimony a substantial number of trees would have to be destroyed to develop the land. Finally, the planning director of the county testified "scatter-shot" development, as opposed to development adjacent to existing communities, put premature pressure on farmers occupying interven- ing land to develop. In a particular sense, a smali residential subdivision would have little impact on nearby fanning operations. However, the establishment of one subdivision would serve as precedent for the development of more. As others sought to develop, they could point to this subdivision as evidence that the character of the area had changed. Economic pressure to develop would then come to bear on farmers. Ultimately, given the zoning and the current character of the area along with the conflicting evidence as to compatibility, the court could not overrule the lower court's decision. see also: Prairie Eye Center Ltd. v. Butler, 768 N.E. 2d 414 (2002). see also: Wakeland v. City of Urbana, 776 N.£.2d 1194 (2002). Notice -- Notice ~ves property owner 30 days to abate nuisance Owner claims 30 days not enough time Citation: Palco Investments [nc. v. City of Springfield, Court of Appeals of Ohio, 2nd App. Dist., Clark Co., No. 2004 CA 80 (2005) OHIO (12/23/05) -- Palco Investments Inc. received a notice to abate a public nuisance consisting of several structures. The notice required the nuisance to be abated within 30 days through either repair or demolition. Several of the structures contained asbestos fragments. Also, the struc- tures were fire hazards because they were not easily accessible to f'~refighters. @ 2006 Quznlan Pualisn~ng Group. Any repmauct~on ~s pron~Pzted. For more information please carl (61~ 542-0048. 93