Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/02/1998

Home

z.g. May 25, 1998 Page 5 that because its dormitory complied with the zoning regulations, the board abused its discretion when it denied the certificate. DECISION: Judgment in the university's favor. The board abused its discretion when it denied the university's application for a certificate. The residential zone permitted univers, ity buildings, and the proposed dor- mitory complied with all the zoning regtilations. The regulations stated that was enough to entitle applicants to a zoning certificate. The board had r.o discre- tion to deny a certificate once an applicant met the regulations' requiren~nts. The condition placed on the 1995 subdivision wasn't part of the zoning regulations. The board could still require the university to get the wetlands agency's approval, but only for development of the property, not for a zoning certificate. see also: Langer v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 313 A.2d 44 (1972). Accessory Use -- Owner wants to build convenience store as accessory to gas station Citation: Tartan Oil Company V. Bohre r, Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Second Department, No. 97-02375 (1998) Tartan Oil Corp. owned a gas station in Huntington, N.Y. It applied to the town zoning appeals board for approval to use part of its gas station as a retail convenience store. The gas station was a prior nonconforming use under the town zoning code. A convenience store would be a conforming use under the code, which allowed for "any retail sales establishment" in the district. Tartan said the store should be allowed as an accessory use because it had become customary for gas stations to include convenience stores. The zoning code defined "accessory use" as a use that was "clearly incidental to or cus- tomarily found in connection with and subordinate to" the principal use of the premises. The code also, however, limited the retail activity of gas stations to the sale of "gasoline, oils, grease, and other petroleum products" related to the servicing of motor vehicles. The board denied Tartan's application, finding the proposed change would result in traffic congestion and a more intensive use of the property. The board found the code's limitations on the retail activity of gas stations prevented it from allowing the convenience store as an accessory use. Tartan appealed to court. The court affirmed the board's decision, and Tartan appealed again. DECISION: Reversed. The board should have granted Tartan's application. The board was right Tartan couldn't operate a convenience store as an accessory use. Although it was possible that it had become customary for gas stations to include convenience stores, lhe zoning code specifically limited gas stations to selling gas, oils, grease, and other petroleum products.