Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/06/2006

Home

Page4--FebruarylO, 2006 These structures could not be occupied because they lacked heat, plumbing facilities, Lighting, and electric services. In addition, sections of the roof had collapsed and window glass fell inside and outside of the structures. Further, the complex was an attractive nuisance to children due to the lack of a fence or other security. Finally, a lack of maintenance was found tu del3reciate the sur- rounding property and some minimal roof maintenance had been performed without the required permits. When Palco did not abate the nuisance within 30 days, the property was demolished by the City of Springfield. Palco sued, and the court ruled in favor of the city. Palco appealed, ar~ing the notice was improper because it did not ~ve it adequate time to abate the nuisance. DECISiON:Affirmed. Palco was afforded ample due process, notice, and opportunity to be heard. Palco did not abate the nuisance; thus, the city legally demolished the structurc. Palco claimed 30 days wins not a reasonable time to abate the nuisance. Local law'clearly stated public nuisances had only a 30-day gace period. Also, the abatement of the nuisance appeared to be of some urgency. Further, the notice stated the owner could appeal to the Board of Building Appeals. Not only did the Abatement Order advise Palco of its right to appeal to the board, but on page two of the Order, Palco was informed the order was "given pursuant to Section 1323.03 of uhe Codified Ordinances of the City of Springfield." A person of reasonable intelligence could read the Abatement Order and Section 1323.03, and recognize that permits and extensions to repair could be applied for pursuant to Ioc=l law. Palco could have developed a repair plan and requested time to implement it. However, it elected not to do so. see also: Grossman v. Cleveland Heights, 698 N.E. 2d 76 (1997). see also: Love v. Port Clinton, 524 XE. 2d 166 (1988). Cond{tionai Use Permit-- Board votes against mining application Company files suit for eminent domain and suit for constitutional violations Citation: Shelley Materials Inc. v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 04-4234 (2005) The 6th Circuit has jurisdiction over Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee. OHIO (I720/05) -- Shelly Mater/als Inc. boug_ht about .300 acres of land to mine sand and gavel deposits. The property was in an agricultural zoning district. Since mining was a conditionally permitted use, Shelly needed the approval of 94 © 2006 Cluinlan Pualiet~ing Group. Any reproauction is pmh~biteo. For more intorrnatJon please call (817) 5424048.