Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/06/1996

Home

Page 6 li)ecember 15, 1995 Z.B. enhanced tl~e value of the unaffected commercial part of the lot. These factors would havd helped determine whether the rezoning had an effect on Zealy's anticipated fuse of the property, which in turn would determine whether he was deprived of substantially all beneficial use. If the commercial part of the property was relevant to Zealy's anticipated use of the rezoned residential portion, theg the whole lot's value should have been considered. If not, only the value o~ the rezoned land should have been considered. Concre{e Pipe and Products Inc. v. Construction Laborers Pension Trust, 113 S. Ct. 2~64, 124 L.Ed. 2d 539 (1993). Lovelad[es Harbor Inc. v. United States, 28 F. 3d 1171 (1994). Variance ! Neighbor Challenges Storage of Cars in Residential Area Dube v. !Town of Hudson, 663 A.2d 626 (New Hampshire) 1995 An owner of land in the town of Hudson, N.H., got a variance that allowed the sale andirepair of new or rebuilt heavy equipment there. (Part of the prop- erty was in ia rural zone and the rest was in a residential zone.) Under the variance, th~ use had to be set back 75 feet from the front property line. Dube cd.'nsidered buying the property for his auto body discount center. The town's ~oning administrator advised Dube in writing that auto sales and repairs werd~ permitted on the property as long as the use complied with the earlier varia[nce. Also, the town PIanning Board had to approve any expan- sion of the (usiness. Dube bo}ught the property and started operating the business. [ · The towg sued to stop Dube from operahng h~s business on the property. The parties 0~ompromised, agreeing Dube would seek approval from the Plan- ning Board t~or two additional buildings so he could move more of his activi- ties indoors.! The Planning Board approved Dube's site development agree- ment. It limited to 500 the number of cars that could be stored on the prop- erty, and reqhired Dube to comply with all zoning regulations. Brooks, ~vho owned property next to Dube's, appealed to the Zoning Board of Adjustme(int. Brooks asked whether the uses in Dube's site development agreement w~ere allowed in a residential zone. The Board of Adjustment over- turned the ~lanning Board's decision, finding the Planning Board had "changed th~ original Variance, was allowing a junkyard, and was endanger- ing wetlands." Dube appealed, and the court affirmed. The court said Dube failed to show the decision Was unreasonable. It also found that the site development agree- ment clearly ishowed parking and vehicle display areas in the residential part of Dube's property, which the zoning ordinance prohibited. Dube appealed. He said his business did not violate the zoning ordinance because mosi of his property was in a rural zone that permitted automobile sales. Dube a~rgued the Board of Adjustment should have examined only the new building~ he proposed, not the use of his property in general. DECISION: ~ffirmed. 117