Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/07/1999

Home

Page 4 -- November 10, 1999 z.g. accessory use, namely, parking for patrons of the convenience store. Because a convenience store is a conditional use in the district involved, the court held that the accessory use had to meet conditional use standards under the city's zoning ordinance. The court found that the added parking could meet the conditional use stan- dards if the design minimized any adverse impacts from use on the surround- ing residential properties. However, the court concluded that it could not ap- prove the proposed plan because the design was incomplete, inaccurate, and failed to address features and conditions that could minimize the effect of the parking area on the surrounding neighborhood. The court also found that use of the property between the mobile home foundation and the street as parking for the store had not been grandfathered. Shannon clarified his plan and detailed the steps he would take to minimize the effect of the parking area. The zoning board again granted conditional use approval. Miller appealed the decision, arguing that Shannon's proposal did not meet conditional use standards. DECISION: Affirmed. State law contained five general conditional use standards that were appli- cable in any community, whether or not specifically enumerated in the zoning ordinance. One required that the proposed conditional use not adversely affect the character of the area. City ordinances required that convenience commer- cial conditional uses promote the residential character of the neighborhood by serving the convenience of neighborhood residents without affecting adversely that residential character. The adverse effect test was reasonably applied to prohibit only substantial and material adverse effects. The environmental court could not find that the parking lot development would erode the established character of the neigh- borhood, especially if it were well-defined, well-designed, and well-landscaped. Additionally, the expansion of the parking lot would not increase traffic, the store's inventory, the number of truck deliveries, or the number of customers. The residential character of the neighborhood remained an older residen- tial neighborhood with some mixed residential and commercial uses. This use would continue even with the parking lot in place. In fact, the landscaping proposed by Shannon would actually improve the visual and use compatibility of the merged lot with the neighborhood surrounding it. Additionally, the area affected was not only the small part of the residential neighborhood surrounding the proposed lot. The effect on the whole residen- tial area needed to be taken into account. Citation: In re Miller, Supreme Court of Vermont, No. 97-463 (1999). see also: In re Gaboriault, 704 A.2d 1163 (1997). see also: In re White, 587 A.2d 928 (1990).