Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/29/2002

Home

II I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Z.B. . AuguSt 10, 2002 -- Page 7 of the property. Such conditions should be consistent with th'e spirit and intent Of the local zoning law and should be imposed for the purpose of minimizing any adverse impact such variance may have on the neighborhood or community." Here, the condition challenged by the owner did not meet that standard. Prohibiting the indoor or outdoor storage of landscaping equipment was in- consistent with the spirit and intent' of the local zoning law. Citation.. Matter of fSO Washington Avenue Corp. W. Board of Zoning & Appeals, Supreme Court of New York, App. Div., 2nd Dept., No. 200f -02303 (2002). see also: Matter of Clearview Gardens Pool Clzib v. Foley, 19 A.D.2d 905. Conditional Use Permit --'Day care center seeks.to expand at new location Owners claim race discrimination when number of children-is limited to 12 ILLINOIS (6/17/02) --The Roberts applied for a conditional .use permit to allow the operation of a' day care center for 16 children. Since 1993, Mrs. Roberts ~perated a li~ensed daycare facility at 806 Ravinia in Shorewood. At about the same time, several other day care centers were being legally operated'in the area. Originally, the license allowed 12 Children, but this limitation was amended in 1995, when the .village ~anted IV[rs. Roberts a conditional use permit for up to 16 children, In April 1999, the Roberts contracted to purchase another property a few blocks from the Ravinia location. The Contract had a provision that there would be no restrictive covenants on the property that would-restrict the operation of a daycare center. Later, the Roberts learned there were covenants that would prohibit the operation of the day care center, and they canceled the contract but did not receive their deposit.. In February 2000, the Roberts' applied for a conditioh, al' use. permit (required in a residential area) to operate the day care facility from the new location. The Planning and Zoning Commission (P'ZC) held a public hearing on the matter, and approval wins recommended until the v/llage attorney noted the permit would be in conflict with the home occupation provisions of the Zoning. ordinance. Another hearing was conducted in September 2000, and a number of ob- jectors voiced concerns related to noise, traffic, and the negative impact on property values. One objector noted the planned day care center would affect the "flavor" of the neighborhood. The PZC recommended the zoning ordinance be amended as it pertained to day care facilities, and it approved the conditional Use permit but limited the number of children to 12. ' The Roberts, an interracial ~ouple, sued the village, claiming they were being treated differently because of their race. The village moved for summary judgment. DE CISION: Judgment granted. The Roberts could not proceed with their claims against the village. The Roberts failed to establish a "class of one" equal protection violation, 131