Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/05/2004

Home

Page ~4 -- December 10. 2003 136 Because the iot did not comply with the zoning code for use as a church, Davis applied to the village's board of appeal for several variances. The board denied the request, noting the use would require four variances from the minimum lot-size, width, side-yard, and front-yard requirements. It felt four variances showed the structure was not suitable for the proposed use. Davis sued, and the court ruled in favor of the board. Davis appealed, arguing the denial violated the church's fight to free exer- cise of reti~on. DECISION: .gdf'irmed. The denial was proper. The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Person Act of 2000 did not completely strip zoning authorities of their right to impose Iot-size or setback requirements. The Act requires that churches not be subjected to zoning regulations that treat them on less equal terms with other land uses, or that unreasonably bur- den the freedom of church members to assemble and worship, Municipal cor- porations maintained their authority to establish limitations and regulation of the height, bulk, location, setback lines, and area and dimension of buildings and structures. Other uses, such as schools and extended-care facilities, were also subject to lot-size and setback requirements. The only uses that were not were office and business uses. Given the public safety issues involved in such public uses as schools, hospitals, and churches, the village could articulate any number of valid rea- sons for additional regulations. Citation: Davis v. Zoning Board of Appeals, Court of Appe. ats of Ohio, ]sr. App. Dist., Hamilton County, No. C-020795 (2003). see also: Murphy v. Zoning Commission of the Town of New Milfbrd, 148 F. Supp.2d 173 (200I). see also: Klein v. Hamilton County Board of Zoni~g Appeals, 716 N.£.2d 268 (1998). Adult Entertainment -- Ordinance requires disclosure of every person with a financial interest in property Councilman admits his motive is too close business NLAR'~:Z,,~NT) (09/10/03) ~ The Howard County Council passed an ordinance- amending various sections of the Howard County Zoning Regulations. The council member who sponsored the ordinance stated he wanted to ban adult businesses from the county, but since he couldn't legally do that, the ordinance was one of the suggestions to limit it. The stated purpose of the ordinance was to limit the secondary effects of adult businesses. It required applicants for adult business licenses to list every "natural person" with a financial interest in the property, no matter how small.