My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/03/2017
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
2017
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/03/2017
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 10:28:44 AM
Creation date
12/28/2017 9:28:33 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
08/03/2017
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.
/
335
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, 2017 I Volume 11 I Issue 12 <br />Here, CBS argued that the applicable ordinance was a zoning <br />ordinance, while Metro argued that it contained non -zoning lighting <br />restrictions. Here, the appellate court agreed with Metro, finding that <br />the regulations operated "as a means to accomplish specific objectives <br />in the zoning code," but were not "tantamount to zoning." Specifically, <br />the court found that the regulations prohibiting digital signs in certain <br />districts based on the height of the signs and their distance from other <br />signs and from residential property were "of a character and purpose <br />different than that reflected in the statement of purpose of the zoning <br />code; they [did] not reflect the land use policy considerations and objec- <br />tives inherent in the development of the comprehensive zoning code." <br />Thus, the court found that while a component of the overall zoning <br />ordinance was the allowance or prohibition or regulation of particular <br />signs, the actual sign ordinance here functioned primarily to comple- <br />ment the uses of property as reflected in the zoning districts. The sign- <br />ing regulations reflected the City's powers and responsibility to provide <br />for the public safety, but did "not impair the use of the property upon <br />which the sign is located." <br />See also: Cherokee Country Club, Inc. v. City of Knoxville, 152 <br />S. W.3d 466 (Tenn. 2004). <br />See also: SNPCO, Inc. v. City of Jefferson City, 363 S. W.3d 467 (Tenn. <br />2012). <br />See also: Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson <br />County v. Board of Zoning Appeals of Nashville & Davidson County, <br />2014 WL 5147757 (Tenn, Ct. App. 2014), appeal denied, (Nov. 24, <br />2015). <br />Case Note: <br />In its decision, the court noted that a 2004 amendment to Tenn. Code Ann. <br />§ 13-7-208—which clarified that rebuilt structures must still conform to exist- <br />ing zoning regulations governing setbacks, height, bulk, and location— <br />"ma[de] clear that the legislature did not intend that Tenn. Code Ann. § 13-7- <br />208(d) give landowners with non -conforming uses immunity from all local <br />regulation of reconstructed structures." <br />Zoning News from Around the <br />Nation <br />LOUISIANA <br />The state Senate has approved Senate Bill 162, which "bans local <br />©2017 Thomson Reuters 11 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.