Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/02/2009

Home

February 25, 2009 I Volume 3 I No.4 Zoning Bulletin gress and egress. ,; The court agreed that the Ordinance would there- fore prohibit Dovaro from reverting to parking spaces that lacked sufficient ingress and egress. However, the court found that the Ordi- nancedid not therefore require Dovaro to change his preexisting use of the lot to conform to the rest of the Ordinances' parking space re- quirements (e.g., to assure that all offsite spaces had "perpetual exis- tence by easement"). Finally, the court also rejected the town's third argument. The court held that the conversion of seasonal apartments to year-round condo- minium.units was not a substantial change or expansion of a preex- isting nonconforming use, which would require compliance with the Ordinance. The court explained that an ordinance would not apply to a preexisting nonconforming use unless that use changed substan- tially, The court found that "[a] mere change from tenant occupancy to owner occupancy" (as in the case with conversion from apartments to condominiums) was "not an extension of a nonconforming use." Moreover, "the use of the lot for dwelling units even though the lot lack[ed] sufficient parking to satisfy the [Ordinance] [wa]s the same regardless of whether the dwelling units [we]re occupied seasonally or year-round." "The identical nonconforming use [wa]s carried on." Further, the court found there was no evidence that year-round occu- pancy of the units would substantially affect the surrounding neighbor- hood. And, despite the town's assertions, the town failed to show how a change in the onsite parking from seasonal to year-round would have substantially different effects on the neighborhood. Indeed, the Board itself had found four of Dovaro's proposed onsite parking spaces were "inoffensive and safe." See also: Hurley v. Town of Hollis, 143 N.H. 567,729 A.2d 998 (1999). See also: New London Land Use Ass'n v. New London Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 130 N.H. 510, 543 A.2d 1385 (1988). Preemption-County enacts ordinance banning use of certain chemicals in mining operations in the county Mining association argues ordinance is preempted by state law Citation: Colorado Min. Ass'n v. Board of COunty Com'rsof Summit County, 2009 WL 60506 (Colo. 2009) COLORADO (01/12/09)-In 2004, the county enacted an ordi- nance (the "Ordinance"), which banned the use of cyanide or other toxidacidic c)1emicals in heap or vat leach mining operations for all . zoning districts in the county. In adopting the Ordinance, the county 8 @ 2009 Thomson Reuters 98 'i'. J : ; il " " il , : , i :\ ij Ii ! :: ., il -~ !l ) " U j II Ii it :I I , il ; i H !! " 'I i