02/04/10 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

i I I I. , I I I I u Zoning Bulletin December 25, 2009 I Volume 31 No. 24 (..-.' \ . ) The Property was zoned "general business district." Restaurant opera- tion was a use specifically permitted in the business district. Martel did not intend to operate a restaurant on the Property. Rather, it intended to operate an adult-entertainment business. On October 5, 2005, Martel applied to the town for a building per- mit to renovate the building for its intended use. In the permit applica- tion, Martel stated that the use would be "retail";' it did not elaborate that the type of retail would be "adult-entertainment." A town building official issued Martel the building permit on Octo- ber 7, 20DS. Approximately one month later, the town's planning board (the "Board") proposed an amendment (the "Amendment") .to the town's zoning ordinance (the "Ordinance"). The Amendment would "pro- hibit the operation of an 'adult entertainment business' throughout the town, . except for the industrial zoning district." The Amendment was adopted on January 3, 2006. . Meanwhile, on December 12,2005, the town's zoning enforcement officer notified Martel.that it was required to file a development-plan review. Since Martel was proposing to change the Property's use from "restaurant to retail," the Ordinance required an approved develop- ment plan review~ The Ordinance further provided that no building permit could issue for any building' "except in conformance with an approved development plan review." Martel applied {or the development-plan review on January 20, 2006. Smce its proposed use was prohibited by the Amendment ad- opted on January 3, 2006, the town rejected Martel's application for . development plan review. Martel subsequently filed suit against the town~ Martel maintained that the town should be equitably estopped (i.e., prohibited from re- jectingthe development plan review because of the town's previous conduct) from enforcing the Amendment. Martel contended this was because it had "reasonably relied on the building perm" that the town had issued. Finding there were no material issues of fact in dispute, and. decid- ing the matter on the law alone, the Superior Court issued summary . judgment in the town's favor. It found that the building permit had been unlawfully issued because Martel had not yet, at the time of its is~ suance, applied for a development plan review. Noting the doctrine of equitable estoppel "did not apply to instances in which a building offi- cial acts outside [its authority under] the zoning ordinance," it rejected Martel's equitable estoppel argument. ! Martel appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. (--- \ ) @ 2009 Thomson Reuters 7 81