Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/06/2008

Home

Zoning Bulletin DECISION: Judgment reversed. Case remanded with instructions -j to sustain administrative appeal. The court agreed with the town's arguments that it had juris- diction over the parking area, but found the town's denial of the school's application was not supported by substantial evidence. On the issue of jurisdiction, the court determined that the school's parking was "occupational parking" within the meaning of the governing law. The court found common usage of the word "occupational" had a broad breadth and included activities that were a source of livelihood. The court rejected the school's arguments of exemption. The court found that the word "occupational" was not meant to be re- stricted to for-profit commercial or industrial uses. The court said that such a reading would result in the other words in the stat- ute-industrial, business, and commercial-being unnecessary and extra. The court also found that given the express higher educa- tion exemption, the legislature did not intend other exemptions. The court concluded that areas within a historic district cannot be used for parking, other than residential, without a certificate from the historic commission. Accordingly, the court concluded that the ) town had jurisdiction over the school's application for a certificate -, of appropriateness. The court further concluded that the town's denial of the school's application was not supported by substantial evidence. Therefore, the court said, the denial was an abuse of discretion. In reaching its conclusion, the court noted that appeals from admin- istrative zoning decisions must be invalidated if they are not sup- ported by substantial evidence in the record. This is true, said the court, even if they are reasonably supported by the record. The court agreed with the town's conclusion that, under the school's proposal, parked cars would be less visible from the street. The court disagreed with the town's conclusion that the size of the parking would increase. Instead, the court noted that while the size of the blacktop parking area would increase by 25 percent, the over- all parking area would decrease by nearly 3,000 square feet. Also, although the vehicles would be parked closer to "the historic build- ings, they would be farther from the vantage point of the historic streetscape of the main street. Further, although the town objected to the removal of natural vegetation, the court found that it did not acknowledge the addition of new landscaping that would shield ) the. cars from public view. Finally, the court found that the town's reliance on concerns of the members of the public was misplaced. 4 \ 144