|
<br />Zoning Bullefln
<br />
<br />DECISION: Reversed.
<br />Challenged zoning ordinances that restricted the use of private pwperty had
<br />to be reviewed giving favor to the landowner, and the scope of a challenged
<br />ordinance could not be extended to include additional limitations. A reviewing
<br />court had to look at the language in an ordinance and, if it was unambiguous,
<br />determine its meaning using the "'plain and ordinary" meaning of the words.
<br />Here, the appeals court found that-while the height specification was unam-
<br />biguous--tbe means for measuring the height of a fence was not. The ordinance
<br />stated only that the fence itself could not exceed six feet, but made no mention
<br />of whether the height of the base of a fence had to be included in the measure-
<br />ment. The lower court had applied the procedure that was used for measuring
<br />the height of a building, but the ordinance did Dot define a fence as a building.
<br />Because the ordinance, when read with the plain language standard, limited
<br />only the height of a fence, and because Porter's fence was not more than six
<br />feet high, she was in compliance -with the ordinance. No variance was needed
<br />to leave her fence as constructed. The decision of the lower court was reversed.
<br />See also: Saunders v. Clark County Zoning Dept., 66 Ohio St. 2d 259, 20 Ohio Op.
<br />3d 244, 421 N,E,2d 152 (1981),
<br />
<br />Injunction-City wants to close motocross facility
<br />
<br />Claims facility not permitted in industrial zone
<br />
<br />Citation: Town ofUxbridge v, Griff, 68 M,,",, App, Ct, 174,2007 WL 315704 (2007)
<br />MASSACHUSETIS (02/06/07)-Griff owned land in an industrial ZODe in
<br />the tOV.li. of Uxbridge. He used the land for a motorcycle cross-country,
<br />or motocross, practice cours.e. Approximately 250 people used the facility
<br />each week, with as many as 40 to 50 people on the track at one time.
<br />Griff acknowledged that the facility generated a lot of noise, and pro-
<br />posed building a sound barrier to reduce the impact of the facility on neigh-
<br />boring property owners. After receiving several complaints about the noise
<br />and dust that thr:. motocross track caused, the town-claiming that Griff's
<br />use of the land violated the town's bylaws-asked the court for an injunc-
<br />tion. In other words, the town asked the court to force the facility to close.
<br />The town's request was granted, and Griff was ordered to stop using the
<br />land for motocross and remove all improvements that he made to the prop-
<br />erty within 90 days. Griff, however, continued to operate the facility, and he
<br />appealed the court's decision.
<br />Consequently, Griff was held in contempt of court for continuing to oper-
<br />ate the facility. Griff challenged that finding, as well as the zoning board's
<br />underlying decision against the use, and the appeals were consolidated.
<br />
<br />DECISION: Affirmed.
<br />In the industrial zone in which Griff's land was located, the town's bylaw
<br />stated that "any other lawful industrial use which is not dangerous by rea-
<br />son of fire, explosion or other hazards, or injurious, noxious, or detrimen-
<br />tal to the [town] or its populace by reason of emission of dust, odors, gas,
<br />smoke, vibration or some other nuisance" was a permitted use. Hence, uses
<br />that were found to be dangerous, noxious, or otherwise a nuisance-based
<br />on the language in the bylaw-were not permitted.
<br />Witnesses testified that the Doiseand dust that came from the facility were
<br />"unbearable." Grill's neighbor claimed that, at times, up to a quarter of an
<br />
<br />3
<br />
<br />1 01
<br />
|