Laserfiche WebLink
Z.B. February 25, 1998 m Page 3 <br /> <br /> operating a fence construction business on his residential property. <br /> Saglibene asked the city zoning appeals board to declare that his business <br /> was a pre-existing, nonconforming use as a "customary home occupation" under <br /> the city's former zoning ordinance. The earlier ordinance had provided "the <br /> office of a doctor, artist, lawyer or any other customary home occupation shall <br /> be permitted as an incidental use when not located outside the dwelling house, <br /> provided there is no display or advertisement of any kind other than the ordinary <br /> small name-plate." <br /> The board found that Saglibene's business wasn't a "customary home <br /> occupation" under the former zoning code and therefore wasn't a pre-existing, <br /> nonconforming use. It said his business didn't qualify as a home occupation <br /> because the ordinance prohibited such uses from being "located outside the dwell- <br /> lng house," and Saglibene used his property to store materials and machinery in <br /> open view. Tractor-trailers also occasionally delivered material to the property. <br /> Saglibene appealed to court, asking the court to annul the board's decision. <br /> He argued that because the former zoning ordinance didn't limit the definition <br /> of a "customary home occupation" to a professional office, and zoning <br /> ordinances had to be strictly interPreted against the municipality, the court should <br /> have found his business was a customary home occupation. <br /> The court upheld the board's decision, and Saglibene appealed again. <br /> DECISION: Affirmed. <br /> The board properly found Saglibene's fencing business was not a pre- <br /> existing, nonconforming use. Saglibene's business didn't qualify as a "customary <br /> home occupation" under the former zoning ordinance. <br /> Although Saglibene was right that the ordinance didn't limit home <br />occupations to professional offices, the board had a reasonable amount of <br />discretion in interPreting the ordinance. The court couldn't annul the board <br />decision unless it was unreasonable or irrational, and it was neither. Saglibene's <br />business clearly didn't qualify as a home occupation because the ordinance <br />prohibited such uses from being located outside of the dwelling. As the board <br />found, Saglibene used the property to store materials and machinery in open <br />view, and sometimes had materials delivered by tractor-trailer. <br /> see also: Corter v. Zoning Board of Al~peals for the Village of Fredonia, <br />361 N.Y.S. 2d 444. <br /> <br /> Site Plan Approval -- Owner wants to run 'home day-care' business in <br />residential zone <br /> Wittemen v. Redding Zoning Commission, Superior Court of Connecticut, <br /> Judicial District of Danbury, No. 326833 (ConnecticuO 1998 <br /> <br />Editor's Note: This decision was unpublished, which might limit its <br />precedential value, and may be subject to further appellate review. <br /> The McMurrays owned a house in Redding, Conn. They applied to the <br />town zoning commission for site plan approval for a "home day-care" business. <br /> Town regulations had two different classifications allowing for a child care <br /> <br /> <br />