Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/05/2008

Home

fP.......'.--.""'... (~) "f t f . ~ ~ '1 I . i . ! i i i I 1 1" i iT'. \\v.. May 10, 2008 I Volume 21 No.9 c- sale and service of alcoholic beverages was an accessory use, Parks had proven that restaurants in the region customarily served alcohol- ic beverages to patrons. The court therefore concluded that the city's . ordinance did not prohibit the sale and service of alcoholic beverages . as an accessory use to the principal use of property as a restaurant. The court also concluded that the sale and service of alcoholic bev- erages by a restaurant generally was not, by itself, an unlawful ex- pansion of a legally nonconforming use of property as a restaurant. The court said that a nonconforming use of property-a use that lawfully existed prior to the time a zoning ordinance was enacted or changed-was permitted to continue until legally abandoned, but could not be expanded. Still, the court noted, landowners were given some latitude to change the original nonconforming use as long as the change was minor and did not adversely impact the neighbor- hood. Nevertheless, the court found that the issue remained as to whether the sale and service of alcoholic beverages by the Restaurant (<<O'Farrell Sisters" specifically) would be a prohibited expansion of a .nonconforming use. The court said the answer depended on whether the sale of alcoholic beverages by the Restaurant would create differ- ent conditions and the Restaurant would take on different character- istics. The court said the ultimate determination as to whether Parks was entitled to a liquor license was dependent on those issues which had to be determined by: the district court on remand. See also: Hannigan v. City of Concord, 144 N.H. 68. 738 A.2d 1262 (1999) (discussing accessory uses); Fulford v. Board of Zoning Adjustment of City of Doihan, 256 Ala. 336, 54 So. 2d 580 (1951) (holding sale of alcoholic beverage in connection with restaurant was an uftlawfulexpansion of a nonconforming use); Redfearn v. Creppel, 455 So. 2d 1356 (La. 1984) (allowing nonconforming restaurant to sell alcoholic beverages because they were an accessory use). Special Exception-Town denies landowner's request for special exception to use property as landing area for helicopter . Landown~r claims denial violates state statute allowing aircraft takeoffs as an acceptable accessory use Citation: Tonnesen v. Town of Gilmanton, 2008WL 657544 (N.H. 2008) NEW HAMPSHIRE (03/13/08)-Glenn Tonnesen owned 230 acres of land in the rural zoning district of the town. The town's zon- ing ordinance prohibited the use of land for aircraft takeoffs and 9 -!I" ~...., , : . ~-. .~~ "" -. ! . i. 1: I: !: 'I !i I i; Ii Ii Ii Ii /: '1 I' i! ,I i[ I, II 'I II II I' I! ,I !i. il' II' Ii. [I ,I Ii Ii 11 ii Ii .~~~ 89