K-Mart Corporation v. City of Westlake, OH, 1997

Topics: Environment | Lawsuits

This court case upholds the importance of a Comprehensive Plan, and shows than even on commercially zoned land, a city can reject a plan for well-documented reasons. In this case, one of the reasons was an inadequate storm water plan. That was enough to deny the project, along with other reasons. The city in this case won in court because it had solid expert testimony challenging the developer’s assertions. Kmart sues the city of Westlake for denying its application for a 200,000 s.f. superstore. The cirt based its denial, in part, on its “Guide Plan” for land use. The city also said Kmart’s storm sewer protection was inadequate. The 8th District Court of Appeals ruled that the city of Westlake, through its “Guide Plan,” had the right to tell Kmart that it could not use the land for a superstore - even though the property had been zoned for a shopping center. The court said that even though the “Guide Plan” was a guide - that the Plan was incorporated in to the city’s zoning code by references in the zoning code. Specifically, the zoning code said the city should “regulate and control the location and spacing of buildings.. in relation to the surrounding property so as it to carry out the objectives of the guide plan.” The court noted, “when the Plan is specific in it goals, and used in addition and in concert with the law of the city, the city may use the Plan to contravene a use permit.” The court also ruled that Westlake’s concerns about Wal-Mart storm water plan “were well documented” and that “it is well-settled law in Ohio that judgements supported by some competent, credible evidence going to all the essential elements of the case will not be reversed by a ruling court being against the manifest weight of the evidence.” The court said that Kmart’s storm water plan did not meet the Westlake code.

[DOCUMENT TEMPORARILY UNAVAILABLE]