Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/04/1995

Home

Page 4 -- March 15, 1995 Z.B. 5;8' The township sued, asking the court to enforce the ordinance against the Johnstons. The judge found that because the Johnstons' failed to close the busi- ness or appeal the officer's decision as required by the zoning ordinance, the toWnship's finding of.a violation was final. The court could not reconsider whether, the Johnstons violated the ordinanCe, but could merely decide how much to fine them. .~ ~ The Johnstons appealed, The judge, overruled the lower court's dec.!sion, saying the Johnstons could challenge the ordinance violation. The township appealed to the state.Supreme Court. :.. - .~ ..: DECISION: Reversed and returned to .the lower court. The Penhsylvania Supreme Court ordered the lower court's decision to dis- miss the Johnstons' appeal and leave the violation in place. The Johnstons'. failure to appeal the violation notice to the zoning hearing board barred their chance to appeal the.violation in court. They did not follow the proper channels to .contest the notice. The case was returned to the lower court to determine the Johnstons' fine. Ordinance -- Municipality Seeks to EnfOrce an Ordinance prohibiting Security. Gates. Retroactively... : Village of Hemivstead v. SRA Realty Corp., 611 N.Y.S.2d 441 (New York) 1994 SRA Realty Corp. owned a commercial building in the downtown area of Hempstead, N.Y. SRA installed solid sheet metal security gates to reduce van- dalism. ': Several years after SRA installed the gates, the village passed an ordinance prohibiting the use of solid security gates, such as those used by SRA, so as to enhance the appearance of the downtown area. Security gates built before the ordinance took effect could remain if people could see through them. The village cited SRA for violating the ordinance and sued to i?orce it to remove its gates. SRA asked the trial court to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that the ordinance was unconstitutional. DECISION: Dismissed. The village could not constitutionally apply the ordinance to SRA. The village could enact legislation to improve the appearance of the community, but such ordinances had to be reasonable. As applied to SRA's security gates, the ordinance was unreasonable because the loss SRA would suffer by having to replace thc security gates outweighed the benefit of improved neighborhood aesthetics. The gate was not so ugly that it was "an offense to the eye" and would not seriously hurt the community.. Construction ~ City Recommends Dropping Plans for Highway Access Ramp Central Eastside Industrial Council v. City of Portland, 875 P..2d 482 (Oregon) 1994 The Oregon Department of Transportation proposed building an entrance