Laserfiche WebLink
item we’re attempting to correct. The existing businesses operating as legal non-conforming <br />uses, there is no way to shut them down. But there are ways to further restrict them. At the State <br />level, work was being done to restrict the interest rates of loans. However, we cannot do <br />anything to address that, but we can regulate them through land use regulations. <br />Mr. Greatens then gave a summary of the proposed amendments: Add check-cashing <br />establishments to the IC District as a conditional use; add 34-132.4 which would include <br />additional standards for these types of businesses to obtain conditional use permit approval. <br />These standards would be above and beyond the typical standards. The proposed language states <br />that a new business cannot be located within 1000 feet of the same type of business and 500 feet <br />from residentially zoned property. The proposal also includes a population-based restriction. <br />The proposed language does not impact the existing businesses. Even if three of the existing <br />businesses shut down, a new one would not be able to open because they would not meet the <br />population-based requirement. <br />Mr. Greatens added that there is a court case from the St. Louis area regarding complete <br />prohibition of such uses and it is not legal to completely prohibit them. <br />Mr. Halpert stated that two issues came up previously: Why doesn’t Clayton have any of these <br />businesses? Why does Clayton prohibit them and we cannot completely prohibit them? <br />Ms. Riganti stated it is illegal to prohibit such uses. We can draw our own conclusions about <br />those ordinances and whether or not they’ve been tested. <br />Mr. Greatens – The existing businesses are grandfathered in as non-conforming uses. <br />Ms. Riganti added that as long as they meet the non-conforming use regulations, they are <br />permitted to continue. <br />Questions/Comments and responses included: <br />-For existing businesses, there is transferability, correct? Ms. Riganti – Correct. <br />-In the proposed language, assuming one goes through the process and is approved, it <br />states it may not be transferred but later states it can be transferred. Mr. Greatens – In <br />Section 134.5 we added language addressing that issue. <br />-Do conditional use permits run with the property? Mr. Greatens – Yes. <br />-What about successive property owners. What if a new person purchases the property? <br />Would they have to reapply? Mr. Byrne stated they would have to reapply every year <br />anyway. <br />Mr. Greatens added that the existing businesses are non-conforming. They are no longer <br />permitted at their current locations but were in place prior to that code change. <br />tm; <br />šE <br /> <br />