My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/06/2018
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
2018
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/06/2018
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 10:31:37 AM
Creation date
9/14/2018 3:57:17 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
09/06/2018
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.
/
360
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 August 25, 2018 I Volume 12 I Issue 16 <br />religious worship located in that area of Cook County outside of the <br />City of Chicago." (See 65 I11. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/11-5-1.5.) The court <br />noted that Illinois statutes preempt conflicting ordinances by non - <br />home -rule municipalities such as the Village here. The Property at is- <br />sue here —on which Chicago Joe's sought a special -use permit to oper- <br />ate a strip club —was within one mile of a cemetery, two schools, three <br />parks, and a church. Thus, by its terms, the state statute foreclosed <br />Chicago Joe's attempt to operate a strip club at the Property, or, in fact <br />to operate a strip club anywhere in the Village. Accordingly, the <br />Seventh Circuit concluded that Chicago Joe's claims for injunctive <br />relief were moot. <br />Chicago Joe's argued that it had a vested right to use the Property in <br />accordance with the law that existed at the time that it submitted the <br />special -use permit application (i.e., when the prior version of the state <br />statute, which was less restrictive, required only a 1,000-foot setback). <br />The Seventh Circuit disagreed. The court explained that Illinois courts <br />have "made clear that a property owner who claims a vested right must <br />proceed according to the law as it existed at an earlier time, by 'at- <br />tempting to comply with an ordinance as written.' " Here, the court <br />concluded that Chicago Joe's did not have a vested right because its <br />proposal to use the property would have violated at least one Village <br />ordinance. The court found that Chicago Joe's application proposed a <br />use with sales of alcoholic beverages, which would have violated a Vil- <br />lage ordinance that expressly forbade adult businesses to "sell, distrib- <br />ute, or permit beer or alcoholic beverages on the premises." <br />In summary, the Seventh Circuit agreed with the district court that <br />Chicago Joe's claims for injunctive relief were moot because Illinois' <br />"adult entertainment facility" statute now prohibited Chicago Joe's <br />from opening anywhere in the Village. The court concluded that the <br />current state statute would effectively prohibit a court from granting ef- <br />fective relief to Chicago Joe's even if Chicago Joe's prevailed on its <br />federal constitutional challenges to the Village ordinances. <br />Zoning News from Around the <br />Nation <br />ILLINOIS <br />The DeWitt County Zoning Board of Appeals is reportedly looking <br />to amend its wind farm ordinance governing such facilities. Among the <br />changes being considered are the following: adding a requirement that <br />wind farms have aircraft detection lighting systems; lowering the ac- <br />ceptable noise level limit from a turbine from 50 dBA to 37 dBA; set- <br />© 2018 Thomson Reuters 11 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.