Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/07/1999

Home

z.g. November 10, 1999 -- Page 3 Gay Dolphin explained that it had been waiting to hear from the city man- agen The judge decided that, because the sign was erected prior to the sign ordinance, Gay Dolphin had vested rights from the abandonment ordinance. Gay Dolphin had no intention of abandoning the sign. The city appealed. DECISION: Reversed. The lower decision stated that the city could not rely on its abandonment ordinance because doing so would retroactively deprive Gay Dolphin of its vested rights. The city admitted that a property owner retained the right to use their property in a non-conforming manner even after an ordinance was passed. However, a vested right could be lost by abandonment. Once a valid zoning ordinance was enacted based upon a comprehensive zoning plan, nonconforming uses detracted from the public purpose to be achieved by the plan. Provisions terminating the non-conforming use upon ' destruction of a specified portion of the premises or upon failure to begin re- construction within a specified time thereafter were proper, if the amount of destruction permitted and the time allowed was reasonable. ' Because there was a time limit in the ordinance no intent 'to abandon was necessary. Additionally, because the sign was abandoned, the city did not owe Gray Dolphin any compensation. Citation: City of Myrtle Beach v. Juel P. Corporation, Court of Appeals of South Carolina, No. 3049 (1999). see also: Conway v. City of Greenville, 173 S.E. 2d 648 (1970). see also: Gurganious v. City of Beaufort, 454 S.E. 2d 912 (1995). ::::-' ::! .:.'. ;.-.?." Conditional Use -- Did new parking lot adversely affect neighborhood? VERMONT (10/8/99) -- Shannon owned a convenience store in Montpelier. He purchased the store and lot in 1990. A convenience store had existed on the lot since before 1973, the effective date of zoning in Montpelier. In 1995, Shannon purchased an adjoining lot. The lot had been used for residential purposes. At the time the lot was bought it contained a foundation for a mobile home but the home had been removed. Shannon added gravel so that the grade of the lot was raised to the top of the mobile home foundation. He then sought conditional use and site plan ap- proval to use the lot as a par'king lot for his convenience store. Miller, who owned property abutting the lot, asked the zoning administra- tor to rule that the front of the former mobile home was not ~andfathered for parking in connection with the store. The city's planning and zoning bodies ruled for Shannon. Miller appealed to the environmental court. The environmental court ruled that the lots had merged and characterized the main application as for an