Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/02/2002

Home

Page 2 -- March 25, 2002 ])ay Care Centers -- Applicant seeks conditional use permit for day care center Claims day care center was similar use as private school OH/O (02/08/02) -- Bass applied for a conditional use permit for a day care center located in a single-family residential district in Xenia Township. After a hearing, the board of zoning appeals (BZA) voted unanimously to deny her request. She appealed, and the lower court returned the case for further heafin~, It decided the BZA had the authority to determine a day care center was a similar use to a private school, which was specifically permitted as a conditional use. The BZA's decision was not supported by a preponderance of the evidence, so the case was remanded for. further hear/ng. The BZA appealed, asking the court to decide it had no authority to g'rant a conditional use that was not author/zed under the terms of the zoning resolu- tion and to decide it had given due process through its hearing. DECISION: Reversed. The BZA could not ~ant a conditional use to the day care center. A day care center was a permissible use in an R-2 district but not in the R-1 district. Therefore, the lower court incorrectly reasoned the BZA could decide whether a day care use was similar to a private school. However, the BZA only had' this authority if the requested use was not contemplated at the time the zoning resolution was drafted. Here, the drafters specifically did not include day care uses in R-1 districts and limited them to R-2 districts. Therefore, the plain language of the resolution did not permit the BZA to consider a day care use as similar to a private school for purposes of the R-1 district. Citation: Bass v. Xen[a Township Board of Zoning, Court of Appeals of Ohio, 2nd A£p. Dist., Greene Co., No. 2OOJ. CA 70 (2002). Day Care Centers --Village prohibits operation of home day care facility . Applicant also asks for variance to allow non-family member to work at facility ri .LINOIS (0",./08/02) -- The village of Olympia, a non-home-rule municipal- iry, had a zoning ordinance establishing permitted and non-permitted uses of property in various districts. Home occupation was defined as "any gainful occupation or profession engaged in by an occupant of a dwelling unit as a use which is clearly inciden- tal to the use of the dwelling unit for residential purposes." Only family mem- ber residents could be involved in the home occupation. There were specific exceptions, including offices, clinics, barbershops, etc. The ordinance prohib- ited exterior displays, indication of the home occupation, and variation from the residential character of the principal building. The state's Child Care Act was adopted before the state distinguished be- tween home-rule and non-home-rule local governments. The Child Care Act I I .I I I I I I I