Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/01/2000

Home

Z.B. January 10, 2000 Page 3 Whaley the highest and best use of his property. There was a legitimate gov- ernment interest in limiting traffic and protecting property values and aesthetic qualities in the residential zone. The ordinance did not deny Whaley economi- cal use of his land, even though it prohibited him from parking his commercial vehicle on his property. FinalIy, a use could not be a nonconforming use if it was unlawful at the time of the amendment of the ordinance prohibiting the use. Additionally, an accessory use was a use so necessary or commonly expected that it could not be supposed the ordinance was intended to prevent it. Accessory uses to single- family homes in residential areas included home occupations, swimming pools, tennis courts, and non-commercial greenhouses. As defined in city ordinances, parking an 18-wheeler at a residence was not customarily incident to a residen- tial zone. Citation: Whaley v. Dorchester County Zoning Board of Appeals, Supreme Court of South Carolina, No. 25029 (1999). ; see also: Butler v. Town of Edgefield, 493 S.E.2d 838 (1997). see also: Borough of Northvale'v. Blundo, 203 A.2d 721 (1964). Nonconforming Use -- Nonconforming health club wants to expand WASHINGTON (12/13/99) -- Larson was the general partner of a partnership that owned a 34-unit apartment complex in the city of Bellevue. The complex was next to an athletic club owned by another partnership, Professional Recre- ation Associates (PRA). The club was a legal nonconforming use in an area zoned multifamily residential. PRA acquired from the Veterans 'of Foreign Wars contiguous parcels lo- cated north and northeast of the club. i · PRA filed an'application for the construction of an underground parking garage and surface parking lots for hhe club. Most of the cohgtmcfion was located on the parcels acquired from !he VFW. The land use code defined expansion as "construction which increases the floor area w~thin an existing complex or an extstmg structure. ' The former VFW property was beyond the club s, then-exastmg boundaries. Bellevue's department of plannin~ and community development reviewed PRA's proposal. The department concluded the existing club could be expanded onto the parcels acquired from the VFW, subject only to the conditional use permit process. It issued a conditioned recommendation of permit approval. Larson appealed the department's decision to Bellevue's hearing examiner. The hearing examiner affirrned the department's decision. Larson sued and the court affhmaed the hearing examiner's decision. Larson appealed, contending the Bellevue land use code allowed the ex- pansion of a nonconforming use only within the "boundaries" of an existing complex or structure. Specifically, he argued the expansion of a nonconforming