Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/04/2008

Home

Zoning Bulletin that the BZA properly determined that a fitness facility was a permitted use in a C-1 district. The court next found that Sassone's argument that the BZA improp- erly granted the parking variance to Hartel because the BZA could not grant a variance for a use that was not permitted had no merit since it found the fitness facility did constitute a permitted use in the C-1 district. The court noted that the zoning code gave the BZA power to grant such a . parking variance. The court concluded that evidence was sufficient to support the BZA's granting of the parking variance to Hartel because: there was evidence that conversion of the space to a fitness facility would greatly improve the parking situation because there would be. a reduc- tion of 19 employees from the then-current use; in association with the planned fitness facility, there would be an addition of parking spaces through the destruction of a building and loading dock; there would be a lack of closing-hour parking jams because the fitness facility would oper- ate 24 hours per day; there was evidence that other tenants in the area had fewer than 50% of required parking spaces, while the fitness facility would have 58%; and there was evidence that the fitness facility would increase property values and enhance the prosperity and general welfare of the neighborhood and community. . Case Note: Hartel had argued that under a "cumulative interpre- tation" ()f the zoning code, because health clubs were permitted in another more restrictive district, it should be permitted in a C-1 dis-. trict which was less restrictive. The court said it did not reach that argument because it found the fitness facility clearly constituted a permitted use in the C-1 district under the zoning code. i~~rM~~ii~ii.{l~~l~~~!I~~lii 12 @ 2008 Thomson ReuterslWest 82 ............... \ "nj