Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/03/1996

Home

Z.B. August 15, J~996 m Page 7 towing service, even between 8 and 5. He said the court shouldn't have con- Sidered that issue since no one brought it up, and the ordinance never stated accessory uses required permits. Finally, Sateach said since the later permits never mentioned time limitations, he should be allOwed to operate beyond 8 to 5. He said he stayed at the shop after 5 only to clean up and allow custom- ers to pick up their cars. DECISION: Reversed in part. The board and the trial court correctly found the 24-hour towing service violated the ordinance. However, Sateach did not need a permit to operate the service during business hours, and he could occasionally stay after 5 to clean up the shop. Sateach incorrectly argued that the absence of time limits on the later Permits meant he could stay at the shop beyond the original 8-to-5 limit. He could, but not for that reasom Keeping the shop open an occasional extra hour or so was too minimal a violation to order Sateach to stop. Sateach did not need a permit to operate the towing service -- an acces- sory use -- during business hours~ Once something was defined as an acces- ;sory use, it was allowed by right. The trial court incorrectly found accessory uses needed permits because the ordinance didn't list them. Operating the towing service more than 24 hours, however, was not a use iaccessory to the shop, and clearly violated the ordinance. Towing vehicles throughout the night would be a nuisance to the residential neighborhood, Jurisdiction -- Is privately run County jail exempt from zoning? City of Louisville Board of Zoning Adjustment v. Gailor, · 920 S. W. 2d 887 (Kentucky) 1996 - Jefferson County, Ky., agreed in a federal consent decree to limit the num- ber of inmates at its correctional facility. Rather than build any new facilities, the county's executive body hired a _private, for-profit corporation to provide up to 350 inmate beds. The com- pany planned to use a building in the city of Louisville. The building was in 2a zone that allowed "social rehabilitation residences" as conditional uses. The company applied to the Board of Zoning Adjustment for a condi- tional-use permit, which the board granted. Objectors appealed, and the court reversed. The company and the board appealed. DECISION: Reversed and returned to the trial court. The lower court improperly overturned the board's decision to grant the permit. Both the county and the company were immune from complying with zoning. The case was sent back to the lower court to grant the company and the board judgment. As an tnstrumentahty of state government, the county was immune from complying with zoning. All state law required it to do was give the board information about the proposal. The board could make suggestions, but the county didn't have to follow them. (If it didn't, though, the elected officials