Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/29/2002

Home

'132 Page 8 -- August 10, 2002 Z.B. since no other day care center served I6 children, nor were any similar objec- tions raised to a conditional perrrfft request. Further, the Roberts failed to prove a racial animus on the part of the village. The court noted the statement referring to a change in the "flavor" of the neighborhood, without other evidence, did not show a racial animus. Citation: Roberts v. Village of Shorewood, U.S. Distrfcr Court for the Northern District of Illinois, E. Div., No. O0 C 6854 (2000). Nonconforming Use -- Stable owners seek to rebuild after a fire destroyed the barn Neighbors concerned about environmental factors MINNESOTA (06/18/02) --Owners of a horse stable c0ndnUed tO operate the fac/_tiry 'after the property was rezoned in 1983 from ag-ricultural to residentia/. At that time, the owner was issued a conditional use permit. Other land use ordinances were enacted m 1996 and 2000, which meant the continued opera- tion of the horse stable becarhe a permitted nonconforming use. l_n 2000, the property was considered [o be a feedlot that, notwithstanding the nonconform- Lag use classification, was prohibited. The horse barn was destroyed by fire in 2000, and the owners· requested a variance fi:om the setback requirement. The township approved the variance. The owner then applied for another variance to reconstruct the barn, Here, the owners claimed a "practical di_fficulty" because such a facility was a prohibited use. The county board of adjustment granted approval of the variance With the pr, pvision that the owner applied for and was granted a conditional use permit. authorizing reconstruction. A neighbor expressed a number of concerns related to envkonmental fac- tors. The neighbor alleged the board exceeded its authority in ~anting' the variance and the variance was unreasonably approved·. Further, the neighbor argued the. owner did not establish "practical difficulties." DECISION: '~rmed. The board's granting of a variance was upheld. The owner based his request for rebel On a legal, nonconform~g use, and.not 'an illegal one. The board did sot exceed its authority in ~andng the Variance. The neighbor had expressed concerns the feedlot contributed to. the poilu- don of nearby lake. He did not provide sUfficient, evidence the feedlot actually caused or contributed to the pollution of the lake or that it was contrary to the policies of the subject statute. The court found the variance was in "harmony with the general purposes and intent of the same statute." Finally, the board properly coffsidered the owner's dhCfficuity in strictly con- forming with floe statute and the fact a variance would be essential in order [o rebuild. Citation: Buss vs. Blue Ec~rrh Co,tnrv Board of Adjustment, Court of Appe. als of Mirage.rots, No. C3-01-2016 (2002). i I I I I ! I I I I' '1 I II I I I