Laserfiche WebLink
August 10, 2015 1 Volume 9 I Issue 15 Zoning Bulletin <br />See also: Smith v. City of Jackson, Miss., 544 U.S. 228, 125 S. Ct. <br />1536, 161 L. Ed. 2d 410, 95 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 641, 86 Empl. <br />Prac. Dec. (CCH) P 41882 (2005). <br />See also: Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557, 129 S. Ct. 2658, 174 L. Ed. <br />2d 490, 106 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 929, 92 Empl. Prac. Dec. <br />(CCH) P 43602 (2009). <br />Case Note: <br />In its decision, the court noted that "it would be paradoxical to construe the - <br />FHA to impose onerous costs on actors who encourage revitalizing dilapidated <br />housing in our Nation's cities merely because some other priority might seem <br />preferable. . . . " `Zoning officials," noted the court " . . . must often make <br />decisions based on a mix of factors, both objective (such as cost and traffic pat- <br />terns) and, at least to some extent, subjective (such as preserving historic <br />architecture). These factors contribute to a community's quality of life and are <br />legitimate concerns for housing authorities." <br />Case Note: <br />In its decision, the court noted that, in 1988, Congress had rejected a proposed <br />amendment that would have eliminated disparate -impact liability for certain <br />zoning decisions. (See H.R.Rep. No. 100-711, p. 89-93 (1988), 1988 <br />U.S. C.C.A.N. 2173.) <br />Uses/Constitutionality of Zoning <br />• Ordinance—County finds <br />landowners in violation of zoning <br />ordinance for renting residentially <br />zoned property for weddings <br />Landowner argues ordinance's nonresidential <br />use prohibition is unconstitutionally ambiguous <br />on its face and as applied to landowner's use <br />Citation: Bennett v. Walton County, 2015 WL 3824197 (Fla. 1st DCA <br />2015) <br />FLORIDA (06/22/15)—This case addressed the issue of whether a <br />county zoning ordinance's prohibition on "nonresidential uses" was <br />6 © 2015 Thomson Reuters <br />