Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/03/2005

Home

'b Z.B. October 10, 2005 --Page 7 safety, morals, or general welfare. If the reasonableness of an ordinance was debatable, the courts would not interfere. It wag at least debatable that limiting the number of dogs a person could keep on his or her prermses served the public interest of providing.for the health and general welfare of the citizens by helping tO eliminate:bothersome smells, noises, hazards, and aesthetic depreciation of property. .. Reinke's home was in a high-density population area. Therefore, limiting the number of dogs in such an area served to protect the public health. see also: West Circle Properties LLC ~. Hall, 634 N. W. 2d 238 (2001). see also: Holt v. City of Sauk Rapids,:559 N.W. 2d 444 (1.997).' " Ordinance -- Zoningrestrictions on signs unclear Dis'triers and definitions lac/ring in particulars Citation: Covenant Media of Illinois v. City of Calumet City, U.S..District Court fi)r the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Div., No. 05 C 0214 (2005) ILLINOIS (08/19/05) -- Covenant Media of 121inois was a sign business With several corporate and community chents. Covenant expended time and money identifying property owners and en- tering into lease agreements to post si-gns at various locations in the city:. The desired locations were located in commercial or industrial areas adjacent to major thoroughfares or highways, However, the City denied al! of Covenant's requested permits for failing to comply ?vith the local zoning ordinance. Covenant sued, claiming the ordinance was too poorly written to be legal. DECISION: Judgment in favor of Covenant. The zoning ordinance was confusing because it failed to define What were commercial, industrial, and manufacturing districts, and which sig'ns were actu- ally permitted or restricted in those districts. Although the ordinance clearly defined the terms "sign," "advertising sign," and "business sign," its other sign-related provisions were confusing and poorly drafted. For example, the ordinance divided the city into 10 districts': three residen- tial districts, an office research district, a public land use area,.a commercial business district, a service business commercial district, a community commer- cial business district, a light industrial district, and a heavy industrial district. There was no designated manufacturing district. However, certain sections referred to the industrial distr/cts as manufactur- ing districts. It was unclear whether both the light and heavy industrial districts constituted manufacturing districts, and if so, what distinguishing characteris- tics existed between the two. The ordinance had only one provision dealing strictly with signs. It pro- vided "all signs permitted in business districts shall be permitted in the indus- 2005 Quinlan Publisi~ing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048. 175