Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/01/2000

Home

· Z.B. January 10, 2000 -- Page 7 permit the new business without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially impairing the intent and purposes of the zone plan and zoning ordinances of the borough. Financial Services sued, and the court aff'm-ned the board's decision. The court concluded the proposed use was neither a permitted nor a conditional, use and Financial Services failed to satisfy the criteria for a use variance. Financial Services appealed. It argued a check-cas~.ng business was a use accessory to the gas station, which it contended was a permitted use in the zone. DECISION: Affirmed. The check-cashing facility was not an accessory use to the gas station. The plain language of the ordinance made it clear a check-cashing business was not an accessory use, nor was it a conditional use, nor was it a use that could exist on the subject lot with the current nonconforming principal use. The proposed business was not only not subordinate to the gas station use and of minor significance, but it was also not a use that had any common, habitual, or long-standing association with a gas station. Its failure to qualify as an accessory use made it a principal use. The gas station was also a nonconforming use in the zone. The zone per- mitted gas stations only as a part of regionally oriented shopping centers. Oth- erwise, gas stations were expressly prohibited uses. The station was not part of a shopping center. Therefore, it was a prohibited use and, consequently, a non- conforming use. It was also the principal use on the lot. Given the station's nonconforming, principal use. status, the ordinance pro- scribed a second principal use on the same property. Citation: Financial Services L.L.C. v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of the · Borough of Little Ferry, Superior Court of New Jersey, App. Div., No. A-99- 98T1 (1999). .. .. see alsO: Charlie BroWn v. Chatham Board of Adjustm~nt, 495 A.2d 119 (1985). see also: Kramer v. Board of Adjustment of Sea Girt, 212 A."2d 153 (1965).' Ordinance -- Was landowner a resident occupant under the ordinance? MAINE (12/3/99) -- Secor maintained his propei-ty for many years as a le- gally nonconforming two-family dwelling. Secor used the ground floor dwell- ing unit when he visited Maine, and leased the second floor to tenants. Two other individuals shared the space when Secor visited Maine, but resided'pri- marily on the third floor of the residence. Richert was Secor's neighbor. She became concerned Secor's property., was being used in violation of the zoning ordinance. This concern resulted from her observation of an increased number of automobiles and trashcans on the pr6p- erty. Richert reported'these concerns to Doucette, the South Portland code en- forcement officer.