Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Z.B. <br /> <br /> <br />December 24, 2006 - Page 5 <br /> <br />DECISION: Affinned. <br />Weber did not have the right to. store recycled asphalt product on his <br />property. . <br />By reading both the zoning ordin~ceand ~e conditional use permit, it was <br />apparent that the term "extracted," which preceded "limestone o~aggregate" in <br />the conditional use permit, applied to bqth of $osewords. Otherwise, the word <br />"extracted" would be rendered me:rdiflgless. <br />The zoning ordinance clearly stat~d, oI)ly raw materials could be extra,cted <br />from the earth and no product could be manufactured on that land. Therefore, <br />the language in the conditional use peI'.I1lit, which stated "extracted limestone or <br />aggregates," conformed with the zoning orclin,.l,Ulce only if the term "extracted" <br />was applied to the term "aggregates." . <br />Weber argued the result was absUtd.becau~e aggregates were. not extracted <br />or found in nature, but were created from otIteI' materials. However, this was <br />irrelevant to the stockpiling question..If thelcondivonal use permit drafters <br />erred in their drafting, it still did notj'l1stify a violation of a zoning ordinance. <br />Ultimately, since recycled asphalt productwas not extracted from the earth, <br />its storage was a violation of both the permit and the ordinance. <br />see also: Home Builders Association v. City of Wildwood, 107 S. W3d 235 <br />(2003 ). <br />see also: Rau v. St. Louis County, 69 S. W3d 0101 (2002). <br /> <br />f: <br />\', <br /> <br />Conditional Use Permit - Permit requires ongoing review <br />Haunted house owner feels zoning iflfor,cement unfair <br />Citation: BA 0 Properties LLC v. Balsinger, U.S. Dist1j.ct Court for the Southern <br />District of Ohio, Western Div., No. 1:05cv162 (2006) <br />OHIO (11/02/06) - Oakley operated ~out4oor Halloween .entertainment at- <br />traction called the Middletown Haunted Trait. <br />After receiving a complaint that the attraction violated the zoning code, the <br />county sent Oakley a cease-and-desist letter. Oakley then applied for a condi- <br />tional use permit. <br />During the peitnit hearing, numerous m~mbersof the public complained <br />about the traffic, parking, and noiseYc~used ~y the attraction. Eventually, the <br />permit was approved, with the requirement QakIey appear annually before the <br />board of zoning appeals to review the permit. <br />In later reviews, Oakley was required to jIDstallsprinklers on. some of his <br />attractions. Finally, when he began construction on a new building, he was <br />required to add a bathroom. <br />Oakley believed the zoning code was b~ing selectively enforced against <br />him. Specifically, he thought Balsinger, the cliunty b]lilding and zoning admin- <br />istrator, was targeting him out of polit~cal aniIri9sity. Ultimately, Oakley claimed <br /> <br />@ 2006 West, a Thomson business. QuinlanTMi~:a Thomson!NEls! brand. Any reproduction is prohibited. <br /> <br />153 <br /> <br /> <br />