Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/02/2002

Home

7.,B. March 25, 2002 -- Page 5 I0 percent of its floor space devoted to adult materials could reasonably be believed to cause some of the negative secondary effects in the studies. In addition, reasonable alternative locations were available for communi- cating the same speech, so B~=~, WoLf was unlikely to suffer harm to its First Amendment rights if the ordinance was enforced. Bigg Wolf did not explore relocation extensively prior to the end of the 18-month grace period, so fi'it' were forced to close or reduce its stock rather than relocate, it would have brought much of any economic, harm onto itself. Citation: Bigg Wolf Discount Video Movie Sales fnc. v. Montgomery County, U.S. District Court for the District of Ma~land, No. DKC 200]-3386 (2002). see also: University Books and Videos [nc. v. Metropolitan-. Dude- County, 33 F. Supp. 2'd 1364 (1999). see also: lJ/hrd v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 78], ]09 S. Ct. 2746, ]05: L. Ed. 2d 66] (]989). Site Plans -- City rezones based upon use as assisted living facility, Property owner instead seeks to build multi-family apartments GEORGIA (01/23/02) -- Martin asked Cherokee County to rezone his prop- erty to a planned unit development classification based upon a site plan show- ing a portion of the property would be used for an assisted-living facility. The application argued the county heeded assisted living for the elderly, and the proposal summary referred to the ass~sted-hving units as multi-family units. The county a~eed, but did not expressly condition the rezoning upon corn- prance with the site plan. Then, because he was unable to sell the assisted-living units to buyers, Martin sought a development permit to build a mulfi-farni.ly apartment build- ing instead. He also sought to build a gasoline station. The county refused the permit and explained ordy an asgisted-living facil- ity could be built. It als0 indicated gasoline stations were not allowed in PUD distr/cts. Martin appealed. The lower court found the gasoline station was not a permitted use, but allowed Martin 'to build multi-family apartment buildings instead of assisted- living facilities. The county appealed. DE CISIOIXh Judgment affirmed. : The county could not insist upon stric? compliance with the site plan when it did not condition the rezoning on compliance with the plan. 7.oning ordinances had to be strictly construed in favor of the property owner and never extended beyond their plain terms. Restrictions had to be clearly established. Here, the court was not permitted to infer the zoning classification was conditioned upon any particular use unless such a condition was expressly made within the four corners of the rezoning resolution. An unconditional rezoning resolution could not be converted into conditional 239