Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/07/1997

Home

December 1996 --Page 7 should have received any complaints regarding the location of the company's storage tank. Local authorities could not infringe on the commission's power. The local zoning board didn't get jurisdiction over the proposal just be- cause the company voluntarily applied ~or the special exception. The board could not act outside the power it was given, regardless of anyone else's actions. Darlage v. Eastern Bartholomew Water Corp., 379 N.E.2d lOI8 (~978). Graham Farms Inc. v. Indianapolis Power & Light Co., 233 N.E. 2d 656 (~968). Accessory Use m Property for proposed housing project spans town line and two different zones DuPont v. Town of Dracut, 670 N.E.2d ~83 (MA) ~996 DuPont wanted to build a housing project for the elderly on property lo- cated in two Massachusetts towns, Lowell and Dracut. The Lowell section was 12,906 square feet in a multifamily housing district, and had a two-family house on it. The Dracut section was 7,420 square feet in a business district that pro- hibited residential uses. DuPont proposed building the housing project on the Lowell section and putting the required parking lot on the Dracut section. Dracut's zoning bylaw allowed parking lots in that district if they were at least 30,000 square feet. Because the frontage on the Lowell section would not meet Lowell's front- age requirements, DuPont wanted to add it to the frontage on the Dracut sec- tion. He asked a court to declare that Dracut could not prohibit him from doing so. He also asked the court to declare Dracut's bylaw that prohibited residen- tial uses couldn't prevent him from putting in Dracut a parking lot to service a residential use in Lowell. Alternatively, he claimed applying the Dracut bylaw would be a taking for which the town would have to compensate him. The court granted Dracut.~udgment without a trial. It said Dracut had the right to prohibit DuPont's use of land for an accessory use (access and parking) to a use not allowed in its business district. The court also found applying Dracut's bylaw was not an unconstitutional taking. It was clear the Lowell land could still be used because there was a legally nonconforming house on it. DuPont appealed the accessory-use finding, but not the finding that the bylaw application wasn't a taking. DECISION: Affirmed. DuPont had to respect Dracut's zoning bylaw even though the parking lot itself was not a prohibited residential use. The parking lot would be built to service a principal use in Lowell (residen- tial) that was prohibited in the Dracut district. Putting the parking lot in Dracut would produce the effect of having a residential building there, so Dracut had a right to enforce its bylaw. Even if Dracut couldn't enforce its bylaw, it could prohibit the parking lot for another reason: The proposed 7,420-square-foot lot didn't come close to meeting the minimum 30,000-square-foot requirement for commercial lots.