Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/01/1999

Home

f Z.B. April 10, 1999 Page 5 Reardon wasn't entitled to a variance based on the town's actions. Nothing suggested the town's failure to enforce its zoning regulations lulled Reardon into buying the property. In fact, the zoning officer discouraged Reardon from parking his van on the property. Reardon didn't spend a substantial sum in preparing the property for this use, and he could continue to use the property for its intended residential purpose. Finally, Reardon didn't show parking his van behind his house entitled him to a home occupation permit. Homeowners could transact business inside the home without special signs or equipment, but the advertising signs on Reardon's van were an integral part of his business. All of his business's equipment and most if its inventory were stored in the van. see also: Cook v. Bensalem Township Zoning Board of Adjustment, 196 A.2d 327 (1963). see also: Taddeo v. Commonwealth, 412 A.2d 212 (1980). Parking -- City won't let bingo hall use 'shared parking' to meet parking requirements Citation: 5005 Properties Inc. v. St. Paul City Council, Court of Appeals of Minnesota, No. CX-98-1496 (1999) Hillcrest Bingo wanted to operate a bingo hall in a St. Paul, Minn., shop- ping center. It applied to the city for a license for its proposed bingo hall. The shopping center had 410 parking spaces, which it allocated to tenants based on the nature of each tenant's business and the size of its premises. A city zoning specialist found the proposed bingo hall needed 112 parking spaces, 52 more than Hillcrest had. However, the zoning code allowed the sharing of off-street parking spaces by "one or two or more uses" with parking deficien- cies "as long as peak parking hours for the uses do not overlap." A city planning administrator said Hillcrest could share existing parking spaces to meet the bingo hall's parking requirements. A city zoning speciaIist notified Hillcrest he was granting zoning approval of Hillcrest's license application, provided Hillcrest continued to comply with the shared-parking ordinance. The city council held a hearing on Hillcrest's license application. A neighbor objected to the license, arguing Hillcrest couldn't use shared parking spaces to meet its parking requirements. Because of the objections, the city council re- ferred the matter to an administrative law judge (ALI). The ALI concluded Hillcrest was eligible for a shared-parking permit under the zoning code and recommended that the city council grant Hillcrest a bingo license. The city attorney urged the council to accept the ALI's findings and to issue Hillcrest a license. The council denied Hillcrest's request for a bingo license, finding it couldn't use shared-parking spaces because one or more of the other businesses in the shopping center had peak parking hours that over-