My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/04/2007
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
2007
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/04/2007
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 9:41:12 AM
Creation date
12/29/2006 3:47:24 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
01/04/2007
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.
/
231
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
<br />Page 4 - December 24,2006 <br /> <br />Z.B. <br /> <br />Zoning Appeals to obtain a necessary use variance to open a new tattoo and <br />body piercing shop. <br />The board denied the variance, citing the city code, which pr9hibited tat- <br />tooing and body piercing within 1,000 feet of a residential district, school, <br />library, church, or recreation center. It was undisputed the planned establish- <br />ment would be within 1,000 feet of a residential district, a school, a library, a <br />church, and a YMCA. <br />On Point sued, and the court ruled in favor of the city. <br />On Point appealed, arguing there was a tavern selling liquor next door and <br />a headshop allegedly selling drug paraphernalia across the street. Cpnsequently, <br />On Point claimed it suffered an unnecessary. hardship because it was treated <br />differently from other similar establishments. <br />DECISION: Affirmed. <br />A tattoo p~lor was not the same asa tavern or headshop. <br />A tattoo and body piercing shop, which permanently altered a customer's <br />physical appearance, was not similar to two establishments selling goods. Ac- <br />. cordingly, any alleged hardship was necessary for the health and,safetyof the <br />community. <br />Ultimately, the board's decision was neither arbitrary nor capricious,Hand <br />On Point failed to show it was treated differently from similar es4tblishments. {..:'. <br />see also: Henley v. City of Youngstown Board of Zoning Appeal$, 735 N.E.2d K <br />433 (2000). <br />see also: Rotellini v. West Carrollton Board of Zoning Appeals, 580 NE.2d <br />500 (1989). <br /> <br />Conditional Use Permit - Poor drafting creates confusion in~rIJlS <br />Permit applies 'extracted' to something that can't be 'extracted' <br />Citation: Missouri ex reI. Fred Weber Inc. v. The $t. Louis Co~nty, Missouri <br />Board of Zoning Adjustment, Court of Appeals of Missouri, Eastern Vist., Div. <br />2, No. ED87735 (2006) <br /> <br />MISSOURI (11/07/06) - Fred Weber Inc. quarried rock and ~tone and pro- <br />cessed that material into asphalt. <br />In 2004, the county cited Weber for storing recycled asphalt products. <br />Weber appeared before the board of zoning adjustment, w~cb: upheld the <br />county's citations. The board found that the local zoning ordiJnatlceandtlle <br />conditional use permit Weber operated under only allowed Weber to store <br />things it had extracted from the land. <br />Webber sued, and the court ruled in favor of the board. <br />Weber appealed, arguing the board erred in finding the conditional use <br />permit did not allow the stockpiling of recycled asphalt produpt because that <br />product was not extracted from the land. <br /> <br />@2006West, a Thomson business. QuinlanTt.I is a Thomson West brand. Any reproduction is prohibited. <br /> <br />152 <br /> <br />( <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.