Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/05/2004

Home

128 Page 2--June 25,2004 SPecial Use -- Church denied permit because there is no indication it has ability to sue Church argues there is no such requirement Citation.· Oak Grove J~bilee Center I~c. v. The City of Genoa, Appellare Court of illinois, 2nd Dist., No. 2-01-0938 (2004) ILLINOIS (04/20/04) -- Oak Grove Jubilee Center Inc. was a church orga- nized as an Illinois nonprofit corporation. It was operated primarily for the . purpose of religious worship and promoting the spir/tual development of people residing in Genoa. Oak Grove wanted to operate a church in an area where churches were classified as special uses. Accordingly, Oak GrOve sought a ~pecial use permit. The special, use permit was ultimately denied. Oak Grove sued, and the court ruled in the city's favor, finding the.re was no indication in the application for the special use permit Oak Grove was a corporation or other entity with the abihty to sue. Oak Grove appealed, arguing there was no such requirement for a special use permit. DECISION: Reversed. Oak Grove's claim should not have been dismissed. There was no rule requiring an entity to have the ability to sue before requesting a legislative enactment such as a special use permit. Even so, Oak Grove was a church and a nonprofit corporation. The omis- sion of this information from the special use permit would amount to nothing more than a technical error, even if an entity was required to have the ability to sue in order to seek such a permit. see also: Ci~. of Chicago Heights v. Living Word O[~treach Full Gospel Ch~rch & Ministries Inc., 749 N.E. ad 916 (2001). see also: Mars Inc. Heritage Builders of Effingham Inc., 763 N.E. 2d 428 (2002). Site Plan -- Plan denied because of aesthetic concerns Commission would prefer to see new building placed near street Citation: Barristers [nc. v. WesterviIIe City Co[mcil, Court of Appeals of Ohio, loth App. Dist., Franklin Co~m~.., No. 03AP-lO73 (2004) OHIO (05/18/041) -- Barristers Inc. wanted to develop a vacant parcel it owned. Barristers filed a site plan application with the Westerville Planning Com- mission. The site plan proposed the installation of a 1950s-style prefabricated structure to be used as a restaurant/diner. The diner would be oriented at the far rear portion of the lot, as opposed to the front of the lot near the street. The commission denied the application, stating it would prefer the struc- ture ro be located near rl~e street because of aesthetic concerns. 2004:2,dintan ?uDlisnlng &,'oup. Any :epro¢~ucnon .~ .~rol]ib~tea. For more information please call 1617} 5,42-0048.