Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/03/1998

Home

Z.B. January 10, 1998 -- Page 3 of home businesses, it merely prevented homeowners from posting signs touting their wares. The city invited owners to advertise their home occupations in other media, such as phone books, that could increase commercial activity within residential zones. Similarly, the ban didn't directly advance the city's interests in aesthetics. Home occupation signs represented a small portion of the total signage the city did allow homeowners, churches, and businesses to post in single-family areas. The city allowed subdivision, real estate, model home, street number, name, and political signs, as well as the flags of any state or nation. The city never even tried to show that home occupation signs were more offensive than the plethora of signs it allowed in single-family areas, which was necessary to prove the total ban of home occupations signs would directly advance its interests in maintaining aesthetics. Finally, the ban was not a content-neutral, reasonable "time, place, and manner" restriction. The ban was not content neutral because it didn't equally prohibit all commercial signs in residential areas. Real estate developers could build signs directing the public to subdivisions and model homes, and owners could have garage sale signs. Homeowners could conceivably place advertisements in their windows for businesses unrelated to home occupations because the city didn't regulate signs inside buildings and visible through windows. see also: Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. New York Public Service Commission, 447 U.S. 557, 100 S. Ct. 2343, 65 L.Ed. 2d 341 (1980). see also: State University of New York Board of Trustees v. Fox, 492 U.S. 469, ]09 S. Ct. 3028, ]06 L.Ed. 2d 388 (1989). Variance State challenges variance granted by county board State v. Kenosha County Board of Adjustment, 569 N. W..2d 54 (Wisconsin) 1997 Huntoon owned six adjoining lakefront parcels in Kenosha County, Wis. Her house was on the only developed parcel. The property had been in her family for about 60 years, and the house was built before the county had setback requirements. Huntoon applied to the county board of adjustments for a variance from an ordinance that required a 75-foot shoreline setback. She wanted to build a 14- by 23-foot deck on the lake side of her house. The deck would reduce the existing 78-foot setback to 64 feet. The state Department of Natural Resources recommended that the board deny Huntoon's request, stating she couldn't meet the statutory "unnecessary hardship" requirements. Following a public hearing, the board granted Huntoon's request. The state asked a court to review the board's decision. A month later, the board held another public hearing, apparently prompted by a letter from the natural resources department, and again granted Huntoon's request. The board found Huntoon's hardship was not self-created, noting the case