Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/03/2008

Home

Zoning Bulletin of the neighborhood, the court found. Evidence showed that atten- dance at previous Society events exceeded 450 people and 148 cars, and that events had been highly disruptive to the neighborhood. Evi- dence also indicated that the Society would hold at least 12 festivals per year. Evidence thus showed that the activities at the proposed temple would cause a significantly greater disruption to the neigh-' borhood than would any permitted use of the property. The town's finding that the proposed use would significantly im- pair property values in the neighborhood was supported by substan- tial evidence, the court found. The activities would cause a greater disruption to the neighborhood than permitted uses, and it was rea- . sonable to conclude that the activities would affect the sale of the neighboring properties. The town's denial on the basis that the proposed use would cre- ate' a health or safety hazard to persons or property off the lot'since the Society had npt established that the proposed subsurface waste- water system or private water system would meet the public health cadI': was valid, the court found. Although conditional approvals of applications for special exceptions are permissible, they are not re- quired, the court said. The Society had not obtained approval of its proposed septic and water supply systems when it submitted its spe- cial exception application to the town. Therefore there was evidence from which the town could conclude that those systems would have created a health risk. See also: Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 110 S. Ct. 1595, 108 L. Ed. 2d 876,52 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 855, 53 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P 39826, Unempl. Ins. Rep. (CCH) P 21933 (1990). Accessory Usellnverse Condemnation-City claims property owners' business is not a permitted "home business" Property owners counterclaim that enforcement of zoning ordinance results in unconstitutional taking of property Citation: City of Minot v. Boger, 2008 ND 7, 2008 WL 152142 (N.D. 2008) The Bogers operated a street-sweeping and lawn care businesses out of their home. Their home was in an area zoned single family residential. As a result of business activities, the Bogers used their property to store heavy equipment, including street sweepers, front- end loaders and dump tr:ucks. Non-family members were employed 6 142 .---..... , ) --')