Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/05/2009

Home

January 25, 20091 Volume 31 NO.2 Zoning Bulletin The court concluded that the Director did not abuse his discretion by ruling that the Surf School's use of the Shop was a proper change in non- conforming use so long as class size remained small enough. The direc- tor's ruling was not, as the circuit court had characterized, a grant of an exception or variance to limit the adverse effects of the change in non- conforming use that was beyond his authority. Rather, found the court, his ruling constituted a "reasonable application" of: (1) the Ordinance; and (2) a previous DPP interpretation of the Ordinance, which set guide- lines (the "DPP guidelines") for determining whether a change in non- conforming use was permissible. The Director had essentially ruled that any adverse effects of the operation of the Surf School were a function of the number of students, not the operation of the school itself. The Direc- tor's theory that the level of adverse effects could be controlled by con- trolling the class size was "a reasonable one." Moreover, the Director . had applied the DPP guidelines when finding the Surf School use did not: physically expand the Hotel; increase operating hours beyond that of the hotel; or increase density on the site. Finally, the court rejected SDHW's argument that the Director did not have the authority to "cure" any adverse effects that the Surf School's use had on neighboring properties by setting limits on the Surf School's operations. The court explained that even if a new use had additional adverse effects beyond those of the prior non-conforming use, the Ordi- nance did not prevent the modification of the new use to avoid the ad- Y ditional adverse effects. . See also: Citizens Against Reckless Development v. Zoning Bd. of Ap- peals of City and County of Honolulu, 114 Haw. 184, 159 P.3d 143 (2007). \ See also: Harris v. DeSoto, 80 Haw. 425, 911 P.2d 60 (1996). Variances-Considering zoning restrictions alone, board denies variance request Landowner argues board consideration should have included the effect of other restrictive covenants on the property Citation: Chapel Hill Title and Abstract Co., Inc. v. Town of Chapel Hill, 669 S.E.2d 286 (N.c. 2008) NORTH CAROLINA (12/12/08)-Chapel Hill Title and Abstract Company and Jonathan and Lindsay Starr (collectively, the "Starrs") sought to construct a home on property (the "Property") in the town. The Property was zoned for residential use and 78.5% of the Property fell within a Resource Conservation District ("RCD"). The Starrs had obtained a building permit in 2002 to construct a residence outside the 6 @ 2009 Thomson Reuters 84