My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/06/2015
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
2015
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/06/2015
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 10:23:31 AM
Creation date
12/16/2015 10:43:42 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
08/06/2015
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
353
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Zoning Bulletin June 25, 2015 1 Volume 9 1 Issue 12 <br />denial of Smith's application. The court explained that the Act's " `substantial <br />evidence' requirement is `directed at whether the local zoning authority's de- <br />cision is consistent with the applicable local zoning requirements.' " Here, the <br />court found that the Quorum Court had analyzed the 300 -foot tower's place- <br />ment and proximity to nearby residences and reviewed evidence (including <br />pictures and simulations) of the specific areas in question, and that it had <br />similarly evaluated arguments and evidence about, among other things, the <br />tower's detrimental impact on neighboring residents' unique views and prop- <br />erty values. "Keeping in mind that the substantial evidence standard is 'es- <br />sentially deferential,' [the court concluded] that the [Quorum Court] had <br />before it substantial evidence on the record as a whole that the tower's scale, <br />its proximity to residences, and the surrounding environment made approval <br />inappropriate in view of the considerations outlined in [the County zoning <br />code § 11-200(a)]." <br />See also: T -Mobile South, LLC v. City of Roswell, Ga., 135 S. Ct. 808, 816, <br />190 L. Ed. 2d 679 (2015). <br />See also: Sprint Spectrum, L.P. v. Platte County, Mo., 578 F.3d 727 (8th <br />Cir. 2009). <br />Nonconforming Use—Restaurant <br />obtains permit for live entertainment <br />Opponents appeal grant of permit, arguing permit <br />applicant failed to establish existence of legal <br />nonconforming use of live entertainment <br />Citation: Vieux Carre Property Owners v. City of New Orleans, 2014-825 <br />La. App. 4 Cir. 4/15/15, 2015 WL 1736870 (La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2015) <br />LOUISIANA (04/15/15)—This case addressed the issue of whether a <br />restaurant had established the existence of a legal nonconforming use of live <br />entertainment. <br />The Background/Facts: Antoine's Restaurant, L.L.C. ("Antoine's") has <br />been operating a restaurant in New Orleans (the "City") since 1840. Since <br />1940, it has been operating a restaurant out of a complex of buildings and sev- <br />eral distinct dining areas that are all connected to one another. In 2008, <br />Antoine's began renovating its Hermes Room into "Hermes Bar." On April <br />11, 2011, Antoine's received a letter from the Louisiana Department of Safety <br />and Permits (the "Department") stating that live entertainment was not a <br />permitted use at "713 St. Louis Street (Hermes Bar)" because the property <br />was zoned VCC-2, Vieux Carre Commercial, under the Comprehensive Zon- <br />ing Ordinance ("CZO"). <br />Upon receipt of the letter, Antoine's filed anapplication for a Mayoralty <br />Permit for its live entertainment. Under the City's Code of Ordinances, a <br />Mayoralty Permit may be issued for certain activities such as live <br />entertainment. Along with the application, Antoine's submitted 14 affidavits <br />© 2015 Thomson Reuters 7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.