Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/05/2004

Home

130 Page 6 -- November 25, 2003 affected far more by the f~rst 75 feet of the dormitory than the last four feet. The planned roof was sloped, thus having even less effect on the sunlight than the straight walls of the building. The board had the authority to modify the strict letter of the zone's height requirements. This. was particularly true in view of the fact that ornamental towers and spires were exempted' from the ordinance's height limitations. Adding an additional four feet to a seven-story building to achieve archi- tectural harmony with other campus buildings and to permit the use of Xavier's trademark type of roof did not violate the spirit of the ordinance's height restriction. Citation: Samuel v. The City of New Orleans Board of Zoning Adjustments, Court of Appeals of Louisiana, 4th Circuit, No. 2003-CA-0604 (2003). see also: Fie.,: Enterprises [nc. v. City of Near Orleans, 780 So.2d 1145 (2000). see also: King v. Caddo Parrish Commission, 7t9 So.2d 410 (1998). Ordinance -- Unrelated adults restricted in family-zoned areas More than three not allowed to reside in residential property IN'DrANA (09/23/03) -- Dvorak owned residential property. The city of Bloomington sued Dvorak and his tenants, claiming they were violating a Bloomington Municipal Code provision prohibiting certain property from be- ing occupied by more than four unrelated adults. The city sought an injunction against further use of the property and a Frae of $2,500 per day from the time the violation began to the time it ceased. Dvorak responded the ordinance was unconstitutional because it treated two different classes unequally: households composed of four or more related adults and households composed of four or more unrelated adults. The lower court ruled the ordinance was constitutional. Dvorak appealed. DECISION: .Affirmed. The ordinance was constitutional. Limiting multiple-adult households in single-family residential zones to lam/lies, and excluding non-families, was reasonably related to the difference between families and non-families. Considering whether groups were or were not families was obviously related to determining whether to exclude them from districts zoned for farmly residential use. Under the ordinance, any persons who were related by blood, marriage, or adoption could reside in a single dwelling in the zoning classification, as could up to three unrelated adults. The ordinance was uniformly applicable and equally available to all persons similarly situated. The enactment of zoning ordinances that made distinctions based on famil- ial relations of the users of residential real estate were an integral component of maNng sure residential areas were healthful surroundings for family life. These types of ordinances also promoted the public health, safety, comfort, morals,