Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/05/2010

Home

r June 10, 2010) Volume 41 No. 11 Zoning Bulletin the Ordinance, the only issue to consider was: "whether Pike had dis- continued its [nonconforming] use." Next the court held that the plant's "nonconforming use" was not solely its production of asphalt; rather, the use included "other aspects of Pike's business operations." The court based this holding on the zoning ordinance's definition of "nonconforming use": "a . , use of land legally existing at the time of enactment of th[e] ordinance and which does not conform to the regulations of the district in which it is situated." Likening Pike's operations to that of a retail store, the court said Pike necessarily had to engage in activities other than asphalt pro- duction, such as: "maintaining and repairing equipment within the plant and advertising and soliciting bids, to be prepared to produce as- phalt when orders arrived." The court found that Pike had maintained the plant "in a state of readiness to produce asphalt" during the Octo- ber 2005 to August 2007 time period. The court concluded that: "[t] herefore, although Pike did not produce asphalt in 2006, it continued to use the asphalt plant." Finally, the court held that, in determining whether Pike abandoned the nonconforming use, Pike's intent as to abandonment of the non- conforming use was "irrelevant." Again, the court based this holding on the language of the Ordinance. Under the Ordinance, a noncon- forming use was considered abandoned when discontinued for more than one year "for any reason." The court found that "[t]he phrase 'for any reason' negate[d] the requirement that the ZBA must consider Pike's subjective intent in deciding whether Pike discontinued its non- conforming use." See also: McKenzie v. Town of Eaton Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 154 N.H. 773, 917 A.2d 193 (2007). Standing —Environmental organizations challenge development variance grants Developer contends organizations lack standing to bring legal challenge Citation: Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Inc. v. Clickner, 2010 WL 1729706 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2010) MARYLAND (04/30/10)—This case addressed whether two envi- ronmental organizations that had performed restoration work in a riv- er had standing (i.e., the legal right) to challenge the grant of variances for a development project. The Background/Facts: David and Diana Clickner (the "Clickners") owned Big Dobbins Island (the "Island"). The Island was located in the Magothy River in the county. It was also located within the Chesa- peake Bay Critical Area and subject to provisions of the county zoning 4 ©2010 Thomson Reuters 164