Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Religious Uses in Nonresidential Districts
What limitations does a municipality face in excluding religious uses in commercial or industrial districts? That issue has arisen in several cases over the last year and a half, most recently in Western New York District, Inc. v. Village of Lancaster (see infra). Although neither New York nor federal courts have definitively answered that question, it appears that municipalities enjoy more latitude to exclude religious uses in commercial and industrial districts than they enjoy with respect to residential districts.
The Preferred Status of Religious Uses
More than 50 years ago, the Court of Appeals established that municipalities may not exclude churches from residential areas. In Diocese of Rochester v. Planning Board, 1 NY2d 508, the church challenged the town's denial of a special permit and variance that would have permitted construction of a church in a single-family district. The applicable zoning ordinance permitted churches in the district upon grant of a permit by the planning board. The board, however, rejected the church's application, indicating expressly that it would not grant any permit for a church in a built-up residential area, which would, in effect, have excluded churches from any 'class A' residential district in the town. The Court of Appeals held that a policy excluding churches from residential districts did not promote health, safety, and welfare, and was therefore invalid. The court considered and rejected the planning board's reasons for its policy ' including avoiding change in the character of an existing residential neighborhood, protecting property values, and preventing loss of tax revenue ' and held that none of them was sufficient to support an absolute exclusion of churches.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?