Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/01/1999

Home

Page 6 --May 10, 1999 Z.B. ~ . didn't have to show a connection between the development's traffic impact and the need for street improvements, because its zoning ordinance required developers to provide street improvements to access streets that fronted their developments. DECISION: Affirmed. Benchmark didn't have to make the street improvements. The city failed to prove a legitimate connection between the improvements and Benchmark's proposed subdivision. When a municipality chose to grant a permit with conditions, there had to be a legitimate connection between the conditions imposed and the impact the proposed development would have on a public problem -- in this case, traffic on the adjoining street. Both the city's and the developer's traffic studies showed the traffic impact on the adjoining street would be minimal, because the subdi- vision wouldn't access that street. Requiring Benchmark to malta improve- ments to that street wasn't proportionate to the minimal impact the develop- ment would have on it. Citation: Benchmark Land Co. v. :'City of Battle Ground, Court of Appeals of Washington, Div. 2, No. 22254-0-11 (1999). Nonconforming Use -- Can town shut down business it earlier stated was legal nonconforming use? CONNECTICUT (3/4/99) ~ Hallahan co-owned property in Westbrook, Conn. Town property records showed that in 1956, the property was owned by Fossie and was classified as "sprout and swamp land." tn 1956, Fossie signed a contract that allowed a construction company to deposit waste materials on the property, but there was no record of materials being dumped there before the town adopted its zoning regulations. In August 1956, the town adopted regulations that zoned the property, medium-density residential, which didn't allow industrial uses. Spreda bought the property from Fossie later that year. Spreda widened the access road and cleared away brush, and he used the property to operate an earth and asphalt business until 1987. Spreda's daughter inherited the property, and his former partner (Hallahan) later purchased an interest in the property and continued operating the earth and asphalt business. Hallahan wanted to enter into a contract with the state. At the state's re- quest, he got four letters from the town's zoning enforcement officer confirm- ing that between 1992 and 1996 there were no zoning violations on the prop- erty and that the business was a legal, nonconforming use. A letter dated May 1996 stated the business had been in operation since before the town enacted zoning regulations and that any short-term increase in operations wouldn't constitute an expansion of a nonconforming use. In 1996, neighbors complained to the zoning commission that Hallahan's business violated the town zoning ordinance. They asked the commission to