Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/01/2007

Home

February 1, 2007 I Volume 1 I No.3 boards, in general, were given deference in interpreting regulations and mak- ing related decisions. Here, the appeals court agreed with the board's inter- pretation of the code.' ' When interpreting a zoning regulation, the court had to look first at the plain language of the code. The court had to determine is the language was ambiguous; if it was, the court then had to "ascertain and effectuate the in- tention of the legislative body" that drafted the language. Finally, the court did not read provisions in isolation; rather, it focused on the code as a whole to determine the meaning of the language in question. The court found that S.F.'s land was capable of being used as it was zoned; a hotel had existed on the property previously. Since the land could be used as , it was intended, the provision in the code did not apply. The court stated that the board's interpretation implemented the intention of the code by requiring "the continued use of land [business district] for regional trade and commer- cial service uses" when a lot was dimensionally capable of being so used. The decision of the lower court was affirmed. See also: George v. Town of Edenton, 294 N.G. 679, 242 S.E.2d 877 (1978). Appeal - Citizens' group appeals decision against plea to stop construction Despite project's completion, group continues with appeal Citation: Neighbors for Responsible Land Use v. Akron, 2006-0hio-6966, 2006 WL 3825153 (Ohio Ct. App. 9th Dist. Summit County 2006) OHIO (12/29/06) - Metro Transit Authority operated a "park-and-ride" bus service that took comm:uters from Akron to downtown Cleveland. Metro leased parking spaces in Akron from an area mall, but, when its lease expired, it sought an independent location. Metro leased a triangu- lar-shaped parcel of land on which it planned to build a bus shelter, a bus "turnaround," and a parking lot for 130 cars. Because the land was in a residential zone, Metro applied to the planning commission for a conditional use permit. The commission recommended ap- proval to the city council, which approved the permit and passed an ordi- nance allowing the conditional use. A citizen organization, Neighbors for' Responsible Land Use (NRLU), ap- pealed the ordinance to court. NRLU asked that the ordinance be overturned and petitioned for a temporary restraining order to stop construction on the site. Both requests were denied, and construction began on the property. In the meantime, the trial court affirmed the ordinance, finding that NRLU did not have standing to bring an appeal and the city council decision was not arbi- trary, illegal, or unsupported by the evidence. NRLU appealed again. Decision: Dismissed. The court had held previously that, in cases involving the construction of a building, the case becomes moot if the opposing party is unable to prevent the construction from starting. Because the court found that there was no meaningful remedy in this case - the building had been built already - the case was dismissed. 6 20 /--:-. \" ' c.,.-,