Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/06/1998

Home

Page 4 -- September 25, 1998 Z.B. The court ordered the city to allow Matthews to keep her dogs pending a trial. After trial, the court issued a permanent order prohibiting the city from taking any action against Matthews, her property, or her dogs. The court found a kennel was allowed as a home occupation in a residential zone, issuing Matthews a license wouldn't harm anyone, the city had issued a non-commercial kennel license for another residential owner, and the city's decision was arbitrary. The city appealed. DECISION: Reversed. Matthews wasn't entitled to a kennel license. A noncommercial kennel v;,asn't a permitted use in a residential district. In some respects, Matthews' keeping of eight dogs wasn't at odds with the definition of"home occupation." Maintaining a kennel was arguably a domes- tic activity. There were no signs indicating'business 'was being conducted at the home. She sold no produc, ts, and wasn't .offering services to the general public. In fact, her application for a kennel license stated she didn'.t intend to operate a business of any kind in connection with keeping her ~ight d.ogs. However, it was Matthews' assertion'that. ~he wasn't going to operate a business that defeated her claim. Althotigh the city code defined "home occu- pation'' as "a domestic acti~,ity," the-code clearly meant a d6m'ektic activity conducted for a busine§s purpose. Maintaining'a kennel could be a domestic activity and allowed as a home occupation.if Matthews operated the kennel for a business purpose, but maintaining a kennel for purely private use wasn't a home occupation. '" That the city may have, in' the'past, issued a noncommercial kennel license to a resident in a residential zone didn't bar the city from denying Matthews' request. see also: Citizens for Safe Waste Management v. St.'Louis County,. 810 S. W. 2d 635 (1991). see'alsoi C~ty of st. Ann' V..Elam, 661 S.W. 2d 632 (1983). Ordinance -- Board Says methadone clinic isn't'permitted uSe in hokpital district ' '" Citation: Discovery House Inc. v. MetrOPolitan Board of Zoning Appeals of Marion County, Ind, Court of Apl2eals of Indiana, 2nd Dist., No. 49AO2- 9711-CV-739 (1998) " Discovery House Inc. wanted to operatea methadone treatment clinic in a medical building in Indianapolis. The property was in a hospital district zone, which allowed offices "for physicians, dentists, and other professionals deal- ing with public health." Discovery House asked the city development department for its opinion as to whether a methadone clinic would be a permitted use. The department responded that it would, characterizing the proposed clinic as a medical outpa- tient facility. A community group asked the zoning appeals board to review the department's conclusion.