HomeMy Public PortalAbout002-1981 - Zoning - Certain Beauty Parlors and Barber ShopsGENERAL ORDINANCE NO. 2-1981
(Sponsored by Councilman Rick Ahaus)
AN ORDINANCE AP1ENDTNG CHAPTER 15( OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE, BEING ORDINANCE
NO. 2325-1968 AS ATUMED, CJ MONLY KNOWN AS THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE
CITY OF RICHMOND, INDIANA, TO PERMIT CERTAIN BEAUTY PARLORS AND BARBER
SHOPS AS AN ACCESSORY USE IN R-3 AND LESS -RESTRICTED DISTRICTS AND TO
ALTER THE NUMBERING OF CERTAIN SECTIONS OF SAID ORDINANCE.
WHEREAS, it is the intent and purpose hereof to permit residents of
R-3 and less -restricted districts to establish Beauty Parlors
and/or Barber Shops as an accessory use of their dwellings
under certain conditions hereinafter enumerated; and,
WHEREAS, such amendment should properly be numbered Section 22.023 of
Article 22 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Richmmnd,
Indiana, and the existing Section numbered 22.023 of said
ordinance should logically be renumbered to Section 22.03;
and,
WHEREAS, the Ridmnnd City Planning Commission conducted a pub c hear-
ing and study of this Ordinance the day of
1981, at which time remonstrances were heard from all parties
interested in or affected by this Ordinance.
WHEMEAS, the vote of the Richmond City Planning Commission was /'O
to C in favor of/gin &rr--=`'� recommending the
passage o Ordinance No. 2-1981.
BE IT THEREFORE NOW` RESOLVED THAT Article 22 of the Zoning Ordinance of
the City of Richmond, Indiana, the same being Ordinance No. 2325-
1968 as amended, be and the same hereby is, now amended in the
following particulars, to -wit:
1. The number of the existing Section 22.023 of said Article
22 is now amended to Section 22.03;
The following Section 22.023 is now added to said Article
22 of said Zoning Ordinance:
22.023 Certain Beauty Parlors and Barber Shops: Beauty
Parlors and Barber Shms, provided that such Beauty
Parlors and/or Barber Shops is conducted only within
a dwelling by only one (1) resident thereof without
any assistants and such use is clearly secondary to
the use of the dwelling for living purposes, does
not change the character thereof, and is without
exterior evidence thereof other than a one foot
square name plate, and does not involve the keeping
of a stock -in -trade in connection therewith; and
provided further that not more than one fourth of
the area of one floor of any such dwelling is de-
voted to such use.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Common Council of the City of Richmond, Indiana,
this i 'ice day of 1981.
President ot Common Counci
ATTEST: !k ti_-(_;_
C y Clerk
PRESENTED by me to the Mayor of the City of Richmond, Indiana, this / f "ss
day of �� �� �� 1981.
t�
City Clerk
ORDINANCE NO. 2-1981
Page 2
APPROVED by me, Clifford J. Dickman, Mayor of the City of Richmond, Indiana.
this 1 y 1�h day of ,t &,, ' 1981.
1
ATTEST:
ty Clerk
CITY PLAN COMMISSION
RICHMOND, INDIANA
January 29, 1981
Mr. Kenneth Mills, President
Members of Common Council &
Mrs. JoEllen Trimble, City Clerk
Municipal Building
Richmond, Indiana 47374
Re: Ordinance No . 2-1981
Plan Commission Case PC-81-3
Dear Mr. Mills, Members of Common Council and Mrs. Trimble:
The Richmond City Plan Commission conducted a public hearing on Tues-
day, January 27, 1981, on the petition of the Common Council of the
City of Richmond, Indiana requesting to amend Article 22.023 of the
Zoning Ordinance by allowing certain beauty parlors and barber shops
as accessory uses in the R-3 and less -restricted zoning districts
and by renumbering the existing section 22.023, which logically be-
comes section 22.03.
During the public hearing five (5) persons spoke in favor of approv-
ing the amendment, and two (2) persons spoke in opposition to granting
the request.
It is the judgement of the Plan Commission that a beauty parlor or
barber shop operated within the guidelines of the proposed amendment
would not be harmful in the R-3 and less -restricted districts. The
rationale for this amendment is based on the inherent differences
between the single-family residence districts and the multi -family
residence districts.
The Plan Commission voted ten (10) to zero (0) to recommend Ordinance
No. 2-1981 be approved.
Respectfully submitted,
CITY PIAN COMMISSION
Robert B. Goodwin
Executive Secretary
/vl
KEITH A. DILWORTH
AT"iORNEY AT LAW
7001/z PROMENADE
RICHMOND. INDIANA 47374
TELEPHONE 317 - 962-0948
February 2, 1981
President
Richmond Common Council
City Building Council Chambers
Richmond City Building
Richmond, Indiana 47374
Re: Public Hearing on Beauty Shop
Zoning Changes
Dear Mr. President:
Please be advised that I represent Jane Myers, one of the two ladies
before the BZA for an interpertation of Sec. 13.35, home occupation.
I regret that my health will not permit me to be with you this evening.
On behalf of my client we would oppose the proposed zoning amendment at this
time. Basically I feel that you are trying to change the rules while there
are cases to be decided under the old rules. Ordinances are mo to be
equally applicable to all persons, not to take care of a short term problem
or to give a city board the opportunity to reach the result it wants to reach.
I feel you are premature with your zoning change, and the ordinance
before you only solves a part of the problem before the BZA. The most
critical part, section 13.35 has not been changed.
Some there, might choose to say, as they did at the plan commission
hearing, that my client is opposing this zoning change because, without the
other person, my client's case is weaker and we are being "sour grapes".
Neither position is true, legally my client has the strongest case, in that
she has written permission from the city, telling her that she will be granted
a use permit if she followed the city's rules. She did and the City didn't.
In summary we don't feel it is fair to change the rules in the middle of
a dispute and that while such a change might be appropriate later, it is
premature now.
—;
Sincerely,
Keith A. Dilworth
CC: Jane Myers
KAD/mr