Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/06/2000

Home

Page 6 -- January 25, 2000 Z.Bo purchased a lot zoned for office use. The previous owner, used it as both a residence and a floral shop. Glass planned to use the lot as an office for its antique business,, which would organize antique buying trips for individuals and dealers who wanted' to purchase antiques Overseas. In transacting its busi- ness,- Glass would not deliver, store, or show goods at its office. Glass would use thd office only to arrange the buying trips and conduct the accounting func- .tiOns associated with them. Also, Glass had more than adequate parking for its When Glass bought the lot, the three 0ther Iot~ near it in thb zone 4V'er& used as'a Wildlife Federation office buildilig; ;./i 'parking· lot, ahd a multiPle-tenant 'office buildingk.'After purchasing the i6t~'Glass'learned the prior.oWned failed to secure the ndcessary permits and .the ProPerty could:not be used aR an office 'withdut meeting certain buffer .requirements imposed on office prdperties abut, Glass alleged it did not know or have reason to know When' it bo.tight the lot that either the current o~ proposed use',&~in viOlation of local ordinanbes. It 'requesting f'fled an application variances: .... .. The boakd denied the variances and Glass S'ued, alleging the variances'sought were essentially identical to those granted :to Lot 22, which was directly across the Street. " DECISION: ReVersed, and returned t°'the board. .., Glass was entitled to the variances. The board's findings referenced its prior decision regar.ding Lot 22, but only to the extent it could not assess the board's Lot 22 decision based on the submitted material. Apparently, the board did not render a decision with find- ings and conclusions in granting the variances for Lot 22. However, the record indicated Lot 22 was essentially identical to Glass' lot. Both lots were approxi- mately the same size, in the same zone; and adjoined the same residential dis-" trict...The two variance requests were 'essentially'identical to those granted to LOt 22. Both properties sought variances to eliminate the 10-foot buffer and the five-foot separation requirement. The board was not required to grant a variance merely because it granted a similar variance for the same type of ~roperty in the same district. However, where the fact situations were exactly the same, the decisions should be as well. Citation: Through the Looking Glass Inc. v. The Zoning Board of Adjustment for the City of Charlotte, North Carolina, Court of AppeaIs of North Carolina, No. COA99-69 (1999). Communications Tower -- Zoning authority creates regulations regarding emergency radio frequency interference KANSAS (12/27/99) --The board of county commissioners had planning and zoning authority in the unincorporated portions of Johnson County. South- western Bell Wireless Inc. held a license from the Federal Communications I ;--,-: