Laserfiche WebLink
August 10, 2015 1 Volume 9 1 Issue 15 Zoning Bulletin <br />sured by common understanding and practice." For example, the LDC's <br />prohibition, as applied to certain commercial and industrial activities <br />was, at least, sufficiently clear. Accordingly, the court concluded that the <br />LDC's "nonresidential uses" prohibition was not unconstitutional on its <br />face. <br />The Bennetts had also argued that the LDC's prohibition on nonresi- <br />dential uses was unconstitutionally ambiguous as applied to the Ben- <br />netts' use of their Property. The Bennetts noted that landowners throw <br />large social parties in their homes and residential neighborhoods "all the <br />time." The Bennetts argued that weddings and parties were not inher- <br />ently "nonresidential" at all. While acknowledging that there was no <br />County prohibition on residential weddings and large parties, the court <br />found that the "frequency and intensity" of the activities on the Bennetts' <br />property bore heavily toward the conclusion that the Bennetts' usage of <br />the Property was nonresidential. Noting that the Bennetts had essentially <br />introduced a wedding venue business into their Residential Preservation <br />Area neighborhood, the court found that hosting up to 30 weddings per <br />year on the Bennetts' Property was not "typical residential usage as mea- <br />sured by common practice." The court concluded that the LDC's <br />nonresidential uses restriction conveyed a "clear and sufficient standard" <br />as applied to the Bennetts' many rentals each year, and thus was not so <br />ambiguous as to violate the Bennetts' substantive due process rights. <br />Case Note: <br />The Bennetts had also argued that the County's enforcement of the LDC's <br />nonresidential uses prohibition was unlawfully arbitrary since the County had <br />not set a specific number of weddings that might be allowed as a "residential" <br />use on a lot in the Residential Preservation Area eachyear. The court found that <br />the County did not have to set a concrete limit in order to enforce its restriction <br />under the facts of the case. <br />8 © 2015 Thomson Reuters <br />