Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/05/1999

Home

Z.B. November 25, 1998 -- Page 5 it could use the rear of the lot for any commercial use. The court reversed the board's decision. It found the variances allowing Sak's to extend its operations into the residential area weren't personal to Sak's and were available to anyone who later owned the property. The court said Stop & Shop didn't have to show its operations were similar in use intensity with those of Sak's. The board appealed. DECISION: Reversed. The board properly found Stop & Shop couldn't rely on the earlier vari- ances. Although use variances weren't personal to the owner and did run with the land, they depended upon the facts of each particular case. The variances the board issued to Sak's didn't rezone the property from residential to commer- cial because in granting those variances, the board considered only the specific enterprise Sak's proposed in its application. Any proposed change in use that wasn't negligible or insubstantial had to be considered by the board. see also: Feiler v. Fort Lee Board of Adjustment, 573 A.2d 175 (1990). Variance M Company says county applied residential sign limitations in commercial district Citation: Hoey Outdoor Advertising Inc. v. _Polk County Board of Adjustment, Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, Dist. 3, No. 98-J 754-FT (~998) Hoey Outdoor Advertising Inc. wanted to erect a billboard in a commerciaI district in Polk County, Wis. The zoning administrator told Hoey it needed a variance to build a sign larger than 96 square feet. A county zoning ordinance stated signs "in Residential districts will be limited to resident identification and Professional business identification." This provision's first subsection stated signs "in this district" were limited to 2 square feet. The second subsection stated "No sign in this district will be larger than 96 square feet." The second paragraph went on to state signs were aIlowed in all agricultural, commercial, and industrial districts provided they complied with the ordinance. Hoey appealed to the county board, claiming the zoning administrator's interpretation of the zoning ordinance was wrong. According to Hoey, the or- dinance didn't restrict the size of signs placed in commercial districts; it ap- plied only to residential districts because the 96-foot limitation was in a sub- section of a provision regulating signs in residential districts. The board affirmed the zoning administrator's decision, concluding the 96-square-foot restriction applied to commercial zones. Hoey appealed to court, arguing the board's decision contradicted the zon- ing ordinance. The board claimed it acted properly because a reasonable per- son could conclude the ordinance limited signs in commercial districts to 96 square feet.