Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/08/1999

Home

Z.B. September 25, 1999 -- Page 5 The commission approved Konover's rezoning request. Olsen, a neighbor, appealed to court. She apparently claimed the commission had no authority to rezone the property because Konover's boundary map didn't show the affected parcels. The court found the zoning commission shouldn't have granted Konover's request because the boundary survey Konover submitted didn't identify the lots to be changed. The zoning commission appealed. DECISION: Reversed. The zoning commission properly rezoned the property from residential to local business. Konover filed two maps with the town clerk, a certified boundary map and a location map. Although the boundary map was stamped and filed by the town clerk, it didn't clearly identify the proposed zoning change. The location map, however, did identify the property that was to be rezoned. Although the location map wasn't individually stamped or filed, it was attached to the zon- ing change application, which was properly filed with the town clerk. Had the trial court reviewed the location map, it would have been able to easily discern the parcels that were to be rezoned. Because this clearly would have altered the trial court's decision, the court improperly concluded the com- mission had no authority to rezone the property. Citation: Olsen v. Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Torrington, Appellate Court of Connecticut, No. AC 18348 (1999). see also: Nazarko v. Zoning Commission, 717A.2d 853 (1998). Zoning Violation -- Neighbors claim deli is operating illegal dance hall TEXAS (8/26/99) -- Steven, Russell, and Eric Dengler all lived near Larry's French Market. The Denglers complained to the city building inspector that Larry's was operating a public dance hall in violation of the city zoning ordinance. Larry's permitted use was a "restaurant ... with on-premise beer and wine." The city code defined "public dance hall" to include "any room, place or space where dancing is permitted." Public dance hails required a license from the city, and Larry's had a dance license. The Denglers claimed Larry's vio- lated the zoning ordinance because although restaurants were a permitted use in the district, dance halls were not. The Denglers claimed that when Larry's began to allow dancing, it in- creased traffic on their street and many patrons used their driveways to turn around their vehicles. They said the increased patronage created noise and traf- fic and that people loitered in Larry's parking lot. The building inspector reviewed the Denglers' complaint and concluded Larry's wasn't violating the ordinance as long as it served food at all times dancing took place and didn't charge an admission fee. According to a memo the building inspector sent to the mayor, the dance floor was only 15 feet by 15