Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/05/2003

Home

Z.B. April 25, 2003 -- Page 7 term "reverse frontage" was impermissibly vague. The court, however, denied the equal protection and due process claims. The parties appealed. DECISION: Judgment reversed. The appeals court did not agree that the statute was impermissibly vague. The term "reverse frontage" had a gpecific meaning that clearly prohibited the type of project O' Shea proposed. Further, the meaning was consistent ,,kith a legislative intent to preserve the integrity and uniformity of the streetscape. The court also rejected the due process and equal protection claims. O'Shea had an opportunity to be heard at two public hearings. Also, O'Shea did. not allege any facts as to how the statute could violate the Equal Protection Clause. Citation: O'Shea v. City of Minneapolis, Court of Appeals of Minnesota, No. C7-02-1266 (2003). see also: SLS Partnership v. City of Apple Valley, 511 N.W. 2d 738 (1994). Zoning Violations -- Owner given 14 days to comply with violations on six properties Additional time to cure is denied OHIO (2/28/03) -- Plassman owned six properties in Wauseon that were found to have a number of zoning violations. On Aug, 1, 2001, the building code administrator, Hall, sent six letters to Plassman advising him he had 14 days to correct the problems and to bring the properties into compliance with the zon- ing regulations. On Sept. 4, 2001, Plassman filed a request with the board of zoning appeals to appeal the notices of violations. On Sept. 17, 2001, the board conducted a hearing v/herein Plassman asked for more t/me to correct the violations and to review whether the building code was arbitrarily enforced and unconstitutional. The city administrator appeared at the hearing and testified as to the ex- treme disrepair of the property. He alleged there was rubbish and junk strewn about the properties and the lawns were overgrown. Plassman testified he needed more time but presented no evidence regarding the issues of arbitrariness and unconstitutionality of the code. The board denied the request for more time, and Plassman appealed to the lower court, which upheld the board's decision. Plassman appealed again, con- tending his due process rights were violated. DECISION: Affirmed. The board's decision not to grant more time was upheld. The board had subject matter jurisdiction to review theadministrator's de- cision, especially since Plassman"appealed to the board to seek more time. The court also did not agree that Plassman's due process.rights were vio- lated. Here, he received proper notice and had a chance to appeal within 15 days after such notice or decision had been.served. An appeal could have been taken directly to the board, even without waiting for the hearing provided un- der the statute. 437