Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Feb.ruary 1, 2-007 1 Volum.e 1 I No.3 <br /> <br />boards, in general. were given deference in inte!1lreting regulations and male. <br />ing related decisions. Here, the appeals court agreed VIoith the board's inter- <br />pretation. 'Of the code.' . <br />When interpreting a zoning regulatiDn, the CDurt h~d to look first at the <br />plain language of the code. The court had to determine .is the language was <br />ambiguous; if it waS, the court then had to "'ascertain arid effectuate the in- <br />tention of the legislative body" that drafted the languag~.. Finally, the CQurt <br />did not read provisions in isolation; rather, it focused on -the code as a whole <br />tD determine the meaning of the language in question. <br />The court found.that ~.F.'s land was capabll; of being used as it was zoned; <br />.a hotel had existed on the property previously. Since the land could be used as <br />. it was intended, the provision in the code did not apply. The court stated that <br />the board's interpretation implemented. the intention of the code by requiring <br />"the continued use of land [business district] for regional trade and commer- <br />cial service uses" when a lot was dimensionally .capable of being so used. <br />The decision of the lower court was affirmed. <br /> <br />See also: George v. Town of Edenton, 294 N.C. 679, 242 S.E.2d 877 (1978). <br /> <br />Appeal - Citizens' group appeals decision agairist <br />plea to stop construction <br /> <br />Despite project's completion, group continues with appeal <br />Citation: Neighbors for Responsible Land Use v. Akron, 2006.0hio-6966, 2006 WL <br />3825153 (Ohio Ct. App. 9th Dist. Summit Co~..nty 2006) <br />OHIO (12129/06} - Metro Transi'i: Authoriry operated a "park-and-ride'" <br />bus service mat took commuters from Akron to downtown Cleveland. <br />Metro l.eased parking spaces' in Akron from an area mall, but, when its <br />lease expired, it sought an independent location. Metro leased a triangu- <br />lar-shaped parcd of land on wbich it planned to build a bus sbelte.t, a bus <br />"'rumaround," and a parking lot for 13 0 cars. <br />Because the land was in a residential zone, Metro applied to.the planning <br />commission for a conditional use permit. The commission recommended ap., <br />proval to the city council, which approved the permit and passed an ow. <br />nance allowing the conditional use. <br />A citizen organization, Neighbors for Responsible Land Use (NRLU), ap.- <br />pealed the ordinance to court. NRLU asked that the ordinance be overturned <br />and petitioned for a temporary restraining order tD stOp construction on me site. <br />Both requesrs were denied, and construction began on the property. In the <br />meantime, the trial court affirmed .the ordin?llce, finding that NRLU did not <br />have standing to bring an appeal and the city council decision was not arbi. <br />trary, illegal, or unsupported by the evidence. NRLU appealed again. <br />Decision: Dismissed. <br />The court had held previously that, in cases involving the construction of <br />a building, the case becom'es moot if the opposing party is unable to prevent <br />the construction from srarting. Because the court found that there was no <br />meaningful remedy in this case - the building had been built already - the <br />case was dismissed. <br /> <br />6 <br /> <br />96 <br /> <br />('"' , <br />1"- <br /> <br />c <br />