Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/07/1995

Home

February 1995 m Page 7 The ban mn houseboats was constitutional. Dozier did not prove the ordi- nance was n6t reasonably related to ttie health, safety, morals, or welfare of the general public. The city adopted the ban after seven public hearings in which officials des_~ribed the hazards to c~nal and river traffic, pollution from the vessels, and Other problems. Dozier's ~neighbor was permitted to live on her boat because she had gotten a special pea[mit under the old ordinhnce, and it had never been reversed on appeal (in co.htrast to Dozier's). The neighbor's houseboat was a legal noncon- forming use.i Nance v. 7ndialantic, 419 So. 2d ~041 (1982). Landowner Wa~ts to Build Rural Convenience Accessory Store With Upstairs Apartment Nestor v. !Town of Meredith Zoni~g Board of Adjustment, 644 A.2di548 (New Hampshire) J994 Dever owned Iand in a forestry and rural zone in the town of Meredith, N.H. He war, ted to build a convenience store with a second-floor apartment above it. After getting the necessarylsite plan approval, Dever applied to the Zoning Boar~ of AdJustment for asp. eclal exception for the project. At first, tl~e board denied the speci.hl exception. After a r~hearing, it reversed its decision a~hd granted the special e,Xception subject to 13 conditions. Neighboring landowners appealed. They claimed that an apartment was not a permitted accessory use to a rural convenience store. The court affirmed the board's d$c~slon, and the neighbors appealed again. DECISION: ~dfirmed. The trial ~ourt correctly found that the apartment was an accessory use to. the convenience store. The board required any occupant of the apartment to be the owner, an immediate family member, or an employee of the store. This type of arrangeme,~t would let the owners.or managers of rural convenience stores have greater ~ecurity and oversight of the premises. Treisman ~. Town of Bedford, 563 A.2d 786 (1989). Residential Ose ~ 1~o Pot-Bellied Pigs Allowed? City of Pepria v. Ohl, 636 N.E. 2d, 1029 (Illinois) 1994 The city o~ Peoria, II1., sued Ohl for keeping a Vietnamese pot-bellied pig at her home io a residentially zoned area. The city said keeping a pig violated an ordinance l~rohibiting farm anima!s in the single-family district. The court ifound the pig was a pe.t, not a farm animal. Therefore, Ohl did not violate th{ ordinance. The city alSpealed. DECISION: A~ ffirmed, in favor of Otil.' The ordin~tnce excluded farm animals from residential areas because the city intended tto prevent residential ~reas from being used for farming. The ordinance's definitions of certain farm animal categories (poultry, bovine, equine, etc.) n~ade clear that the animals themselves were not prohibited, just the use of tho~e animals for farming or ranching. Pets were permitted. Since