Laserfiche WebLink
<br />July 15, 2007\ Volume 1 I No. 14 <br /> <br />granted a period of more than twO months for both sides to gather and <br />present testimony that factored into that decision. <br />Del Vecchio argued that the judgmem in favor of the tovv~ship was <br />in error because there were still issues as to material fact. If an issue of <br />material fact-something that would affect the outcome of a case-ex- <br />isted, judgment without a trial was not proper. The appeals court found <br />that the lengthy decision of the lower court did not leave any stones un- <br />turned; no issues of material fact existed. <br />The state law in this case was clear; a license would not be granted <br />without proof that certain local agencies approved of the change in a <br />facility's use. There was sim.ply no way for Del Vecchio to circumvent <br />this requirement. The decision of the lower court was affirmed. <br /> <br />Jurisdiction-Owner of trucking company claims <br />township has no authority to regulate public utilities <br /> <br />Township insists variance is necessary to operate business <br /> <br />Citation: Superior Hauling, Inc. v. Allen Twp. Zoning Ed. of Appeals, <br />2007-0hio-3109, 2007 WL 1793768 (Ohio Ct. App. 6th Dist. Ottawa <br />County 2007) <br /> <br />OHIO (06/22/07)-Jensen operated an interstate trucking and hauling <br />company on land he owned in Allen Township. In 2002, the town- <br />ship's zoning inspector told Jensen that his property was zoned for ag- <br />ricultural use and that he needed a variance to contiQue operatD."1g his <br />business from his home. Jensen applied to the zoning board of appeals <br />for a variance, but it was denied. <br />Jensen continued to operate the company. In response, the tovv~ship <br />issued a violation and an order to cease operations. The order stated <br />that, if Jensen continued to be in violation after a certain date, he would <br />be fined $100 a day. Five days before the fine was to begi.Tl, Jensen :filed <br />a petition in court aski.."1g it to declare the company a public utility. Pub- <br />lic utilities were exempt from certain zoning restrictions. <br />In addition, Jensen asked the coun to prevent the tow~ship from re- <br />quiring him to apply for any further zoning variances and prohibiting <br />the township from interfering with his existing busD."1ess. The township <br />conceded that the company was a public utility, but it countered that <br />Jensen's request should be dismissed because he had not exhausted his <br />administrative remedies by appealing the variance denial. <br />The lower court dismissed the clai..rn, and Jensen appealed. <br /> <br />Decision: Reversed. <br /> <br />Jensen argued that, based on the township's zoning ordinance, the <br />board of appeals was without jurisdiction to require a variance or re- <br /> <br />11 <br /> <br />111 <br /> <br />