Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/01/2007

Home

Page 8 Z.B. Conditional Use Permit - Neighboring property owner appeals use ofland as campground Campground was not valid conditional use in resi4ential zoning district Citation: Genovese v. Beckham, Court of Appeals of Ohio, 9th Appellate District, No. c.A. 22814 (2006) OHIO (03/15/06) - The Akron Yacht Club (club) leased a parcel of land on which it operated a campground, boat docks, and a clubhouse. The property was located in an R -1 residential zoning district, and its use of the property was not allowed under the Coventry Township Zoning Resolution. The club previ- ously had been granted conditional use permits to operate the facility. On March 22, 2004, the dub applied for a continuation of its conditional use permit and a public hearing was scheduled. At the hearing, Genovese, a nearby . property owner, objected to the continuation of the permit on the grounds that the campground produced, excessive noise. The Board of Zoning Appeals (board) granted the continuation of the spe- cial permit over Genovese's objections~ Genovese fIled suit, arguing that the zoning resolution listed six conditionally permitted uses for which a conditional use permit could be granted in an R -1 residential zoning district, and a camp- ground was not one of those uses. The coUrt ruled ,in the board's favor. , ' , Genovese appealed, arguing that the board abused its discretion and the trial co~ erred in its application of the law. DECISION: Reversed. The appeals court ruled that the board abused its discretion., In this case, the zoning resolution specificallY identified six "conditionally pemiitted uses" for an R..J re,sidential district. TJIe u~es included: publicly owned and 'operated facilities (police stations, toWn haUl etc.); schools; churche~~d houses of worship; golf courses and country Clubs; accessory structures; and alcohol, drug, and mental-health treatment facilities. The resolution' did not specifY campgrounds or' yacht clubs. The resolution further stated that uses that were not specified in the regulation were prohibited urness the resolution ' was amended to include them. In its decision; the appeals court cited' a statute that stated that zoning boards did not have the authority to grant conditional use permits independent of the zoning resolution; they only had the authority to grant conditional use permits as specifically authorized by the zoning resolution. The court also found that the lower court had erred by not conducting an analysis of Ohio law or of the zoning resolution, and that it had merely made a statement that the board did not violate any statutory provisions. The granting of the continuation of the conditional use permit was clearly an error that resulted from an abuse of the board's discretion. see also: Gerzeny v. Richfield Township, 405 N.E.2d 1034 (1980). @ 2006 West, a Thomson business. Quinlan™ is a Thomson West brand. Any reproduction is prohibited. 42