Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/04/1997

Home

Page 6 January 15, 1997 Z.B. plans than religion. That is, the use was more commercial than religious. It would be inappropriate for the court to order the village to allow the Diocese to operate a cemetery. The village not only addressed whether the application was in accord with the comprehensive plan, but whether the plan should be changed to accommodate the proposal. Further, the village had discretion in acting on the application. see also: Cannon v. Murphy, 600 N.Y.S. 2d 965. see also: Yeshiva & Mesivta Toras Chaim v. Rose, 523 N.Y.S. 2d 907. Commercial Use -- Neighbors say boat rental building is prohibited Citation: £eckley v. Town of Windham, 683 A.2d 774 (Maine) 1996 The Maynards owned land in a resource protection district next to the Pleasant River in Windham, Maine. The town's shoreland zoning ordinance allowed "public and private parks and recreation areas involving minimal structural development" and marinas in resource protection districts. It also authorized accessory structures under a permit. "Commercial structures" were not a permitted use in resource protection districts. The Maynards wanted to run a boat rental business from their property. They submitted a proposal to the Windham Planning Board. The plan included a 24-by-28-foot building, which would include a public area for sales activities, office space, a maintenance area and a gasoline storage area. The board granted the permit, concluding that a boat rental business was a permitted use in the district and that the proposed building was an accessory structure. The board reasoned that structures accessory to permitted uses were allowed under a permit, so the proposed building was not prohibited by the ban on "commercial structures." A group of neighbors went to court to get the board's decision reversed, but the court upheld the board. The neighbors appealed. Their complaint focused on the building, which they said was a prohibited commercial structure. DECISION: Board's decision voided. The plain language of the ordinance prohibited the Maynards' proposed building. Though the ordinance did not define "commercial structure," "commercial" meant "having profit as a chief aim." The proposed building was a commercial structure, which the ordinance clearly prohibited. Though marinas and parks with minimal development were allowed in resource protection districts, commercial structures were not. see also: 23ushey v. Town of China, 645 A.2d 615 (1994). see also: Dyer v. Town of Cumberland, 632 A.2d 145 (1993). Adult Entertainment- City council refuses special permit, citing ordinance obi ectives Citation: Dia v. City of Toledo, 937 F..Supp. 673 (Ohio)1996 Dia wanted to open an "adult entertainment center" in Toledo, Ohio. The center would provide sexually oriented books and magazines and nude dancing.