Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/05/2007

Home

r" " Zoning Bulletin Decision: Affirmed. The propo~ed 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 me 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 when: the 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 me zoning regulatiOIlS at the time and was never corisidered a nonconforming use. The deci$.ion of the lower court was af:firmed. ~, 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 (01105/07) _ Lyons owned property in Harrison County that was zoned agriculrural. He applied to me board of adju.stmeD.t for a special use permit to. operate a sportSman's club/shooting range aD. the property. A public hearing was held in April20G4, with Seyera1 wi'JDfSS testifyJ.ng OD. bot.l;. sides. The board voted on the application at the next meeting and decided unan- imoudy to approve the permit. There was nO addici.onal evidence presented, but the board did review the evidence from the April meeting and reviewed relevant zoning ordinanc:es. 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: RElJers~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. bold a hearing, take and weigh evidence, produce Bndings 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 deEnition - required a statement of the board's facrual deterrn.inacion that jusci:6.ed issuirig the permir, and the record had . 3 , 93