Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/05/2004

Home

Z.B December 24, 2003 -- Page 5 the edSe. The town ordinance required a 45-foot setback. Du~aldo sued. DECISION: Affirmed. Th/: board's denial was appropriate. ThE record contained evidence from neighbors regarding traffic and safety concerns. The neighbors were c~>ncerned the proposed house was=ooine,~ to be built ngar a crest of a hill, on a very narrow dead end street, with heavy traffic. Children and school buses used the road, and accidents and near accidents had occurr,~d in the vicinity. Board members could rely on their own knowledge of the area to conf:m'n the faC{s. During the application hearing, the board members heard the neigh- bors' C0ncerns. and then discussed the safety issues caused by the curve based on theft: own knowledge. Consequently, the evidence supported the contention that th4. proposal would compromise the safety of the area. Neighbors were also concerned about the effect a .smaller house in the area would !have on their property values since a number of people on the street were a~t. ding to their homes. DuBaldo failed to prove property values would not be i~ffected. Fifi, ally, DuBaldo faced no hardship any different than those faced by other proper~y owners in the town with similar lots. Citatioh: DuBaldo v. Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Andover, Superior Court ilof Connecticut, ~rudicial District of Tolland, at Rockville, No. CV03080033, (200.~ ). see alsO: Harris v. Zoning Commission, 788 A.2d 1239 (2002). see also: Reid v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 670 A.2d 1271 (1996). Adult Entertainment g' Ordinance does not provide for administrative revieWI Direct{ ago~eved license applicants to the civil court system IND[AINA (11/03/03)'--The City of Indianapolis enacted a new ordinance for the licensing and premises r%ulation of adult entertainment businesses. Th~, ordinance stated there was no administrative review for'licensing deci- sions, ~nd aggrieved applicants had to appeal to the superior court. However, there Oas no indication of how such an appeal was undertaken, or what steps led up [o it. Anhex Books, an adult entertainment business within the city, sued. Annex B~>oks Claimed the new ordinance violated its constitutional rights. DECISION: Judgment in favor of Annex. Th~ ordinance was unconstitutional. There was an incontrovertible, compelling public interest in promoting the health, ?,afety, morals, and general welfare of the citizens of the city. Similarly, there ~as an unquestioned public interest in regulating health interests in a m:tnne~ that conformed to Constitutional standards. The city had to achieve its ,,(~al of;advancina the v,,elfare of its citizens within constitutional limits. 145