My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/02/2006
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
2006
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/02/2006
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 9:39:00 AM
Creation date
1/27/2006 1:17:10 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
02/02/2006
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.
/
255
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
Page 8 --November 25, 2005 <br /> <br />Nonconforming Use -- B°ard fails to create record for permit denial . <br />Tavern claims it has presented adult entertainment for 15 years <br />Citation: Mombee TLC Inc. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, <br />Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, No. i779, September Term, 2004 <br />(2005) <br />MARYLAND (10/06/05) -- Mombee TLC Inc. applied for a nonconforming use <br />permit for the adult entertainment presented at its bar, Club Bunns. <br /> Although a tavern with live entertainment and dancing was not a per- <br />mitted use in the district, it was allowed as a nonconforming use if it had <br />existed since 1993. Mombee claimed that it had been presenting adult enter- <br />tainment since 1990 and, as such, was entitled to continue it under a non- <br />conforming use. <br /> However, after a heating with witnesses both for and against Mombee's <br /> proposal, the board of zoning adjustment voted to deny the perra/t. <br /> Mombee sued, and the court ruled in favor of the board. <br /> Mombee appealed. <br /> DECISION: Reversed. <br /> The record was insufficient to support the board'~ decision. <br /> The board made no findings as to whom or what it believed, how it inter- <br /> preted the records presented, or the controlling statutes involved. Thus, the <br /> court could not determine whether the board found that the evidence of the <br /> establishment as a nonconforming use was insufficient because of gaps in the <br /> supporting evidence or because it found the evidence either too ambiguous or <br /> too incredible to be worthy of belief. Nor was it clear what definition of adult <br /> entertainment the .board applied. <br /> Consequently, because the court could not determine how the board <br /> made its decision, the court had to reverse it and return the issue back to the <br /> board. <br /> see also: Board of County Commissioners for St. Mary's County v. Southerri <br /> Resources Management Inc., 8~7 A.2d 1059 (~000). <br /> see also: Sweeney v. Montgomery County, 667 A.2d 922 (1995). <br /> <br />Questions? Comments? <br /> <br /> Subscription information: ' <br />Customer Service ($00)229-2084-ihfo@quinlan corn <br />Editor/al'questions/comments: Lesley RosenbIoom. Esq. <br /> 1617 ) 542-0048 lesley @ quinlan, corrt <br /> <br /> lcD, 2005 Qumlan pur~iishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048. <br />122 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.