Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/01/2007

Home

ro. " r'" _ Zoning Bulletin Decision: Affirmed. The proposed lot did not require a special permit as Thomas had argued. The relevant law stated that "any alterations, improvements, or modifica- tions to an existing parking area of 5 spaces or more or a 25 percent expan- sion including the establishment of a new parking area shall not be estab- lished until a site plan ... has been approved by the Commission." There was nothing in the regulations that required a special permit for off- street parking when no other changes in use were _ sought. Further, the com- mission went beyond what was required by holding the hearing;-it had adopt- ed the practice of holding hearings in such cases, but they were not necessary. The appeals court also rejected Thomas' claim that the new lot was an expansion of a nonconforming use. Further, the court found that the lot was not a nonconforming use at all. The facility became a nonconforming use whertthe property was rezoned from a manufacturing to residential zone; part of the redistricting plan allowed existing uses to remain as noncon- forming uses and had allowances for some expansion. The lot, however, conformed to the zoning regulations at the time and was never considered a nonconforming use. The deci&ion of the lower court was affirmed. Due Process - Neighbor challenges board's decision on proposed shooting range Argues board did not provide findings of fact Citation: Clifford v. Harrison County Bd. of Adjustment, 2007 WL 29426 (Ky. Ct. App. 2007). ' KENTUCKY (01/05107) - Lyons owned property in Harrison County that' was zoned agricultural. He applied to the board of adjustment for a special use permit to operate a sportsman's clublshooting range on the property. A public hearing was held in April 2004, with several wimess testifying on both sides. The board voted on the application at the next meeting and decided unan- imously to approve the permit. There was no additional evidence presented, but the board did review the evidence from the April meeting and reviewed relevant zoning ordinances. Clifford, a neighboring property owner, appealed' the decision to .court. The court found in favor of the board and upheld the permit. Clifford ap- pealed again. Decision: Reverse,d and returned to lower court for further proceedings. Clifford argued that the board did not make any findings of fact in reach- ing its decision and that it did not consider possible adverse affects of a shooting range in the agricultural district. At minimum, due process required that: a board hold a hearing, take and weigh evidence, produce findings of fact based on the evidence and an order supported by substantial evidence, and provide a means for judicial review of the decision. A conditional use permit - by definition - required a statement of the board's factual determination that justified issuing the permit, and the record had ' 3 17