Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/04/2008

Home

:! il- l; !J' q H ii ': I! ]\ I, 'I Ii June 25, 20081 Volume 21 No. 12 '-~ ') Permitted Use-BZAdetermines planned fitness facility is a permitted use (~' Neighbor argues facility is not permitted because it is not a permitted use li~ted in the zoning code Citation: Sassone v. Hartel Enterprises, L.L.c., 981 So. 2d 923 (La. Ct. App:3d Cir. 2008) LOUISIANA (04/03/08) - Hartel Enterprises, L.L.c. (Hartel) planned to convert property it owned in the city's' Neighborhood Commercial DistriCt (C-l) from its then current use to a small fitness facility called Snap Fitness. The city's Board of Zoning Adjustments (BZA) determined that Hattel's planned fitness facility was a "permitted" use under the zoning code. It also granted Hartel's request for a parking variance for 10 fewer spaces than the code required. Martha Sassone owned a salon, which was located in the immediate vicinity of the planned fitness facility. Sassone appealed the BZA decision to the district court. The district court affirmed the BZA decision. Sassone appealed. Sassone argued that the plarined fitness facility was not permitted. She said this was because it was not specifically listed in the city's zoning code as a permitted use in C-l districts. She further argued that the code's permitted use of "general retail stores and establishments" applied only to the sale of goods, not to the sale of.services, which was the main purpose of the intended fitness facility. She also argued that the BZA improperly granted the parking variance to Hartel because the BZA could not grant a variance for a use that was not permitted. DECiSION: Affirmed. The court determined that the planned fitness facility was a permitted use under the zoning code's provision for the specifically permitted use of "general retail stores and establishments." In so concluding, the court disagreed with Sassone's arguments. The court found that the zoning code did permit the sale of services in a C-l, district. The court pointed , to the zoning code's description of a C-l district. That description pro- vided that a C-l district was to provide for "the retailing of goods and the furnishing of selected services ...." (emphasis added by the court). The court also found that most of the permitted uses listed in the zoning code were for businesses that provided services. The court further noted that most of the other eleven businesses in the commercial strip center where the fitness facility was to be located were service establishments. -' The court found that almost all of those eleven businesses were not spe- cific8:11y listed in the zoning code as permitted uses. The court concluded @ 2008 Thomson Reuters/West 11 81