Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/06/1996

Home

Z.B. December 15, 1995 -- Page 7 The trial court properly determined that Dube did not show the Board of Adjustment's decision to be unreasonable. The evidence supported the trial court's finding that the site development agreement showed parking and vehicle display areas in the residential zone m the site plan that the Planning Board approved showed the same thing. The Board of Adjustment did not have to limit its review to the new buildings Dube proposed; Brooks asked it to decide whether the ordinance allowed the uses stated in the site development agree- ment, which included storage of 500 cars. Belluscio v. Town of Westmoreland, 648 A.2d 211 (1994). Certificate of Occupancy -- City Says Owner Lost Nonconforming Use by Tearing Building Down Schwartz v. Board of Adjustment of the City of St. Louis, 906 S. W. 2d 423 (Missouri) 2995 In 1971, Schwartz got a certificate of occupancy for the "display, sale and storage of used auto parts and sections ... "on property he owned in the city of St. Louis, Mo. The certificate also stated, "[n]o hot cutting of autos done." In :1.986, the city passed a new zoning ordinance that placed Schwartz's property in a zone that did not allow a salvage yard or auto recycling lot with open storage. Eight years later, Schwartz applied for an occupancy permit to operate an auto recycling lot with open storage. His application was based on his 1971 certificate. The building commissioner denied the permit, and Schwartz appealed to the Board of Adjustment. At a board hearing, Schwartz presented his 1971 certificate of occupancy and said his use of the property remained the same except that he had torn the building down at some point. According to Schwartz, people had run into the lot's fence and discarded used tires there, so it was starting to look like a garbage dump. Schwartz said he thought the best way to clean up the lot was to raze the building and put up a new fence. The board upheld the commissioner's decision, finding Schwartz did not show an undue hardship. Schwartz appealed to court. The court reversed the board's decision in part. It found the vacant part of the lot was a valid nonconforming use for which a permit should have been issued. The court affirmed the denial of the permit for the space on which the building used to stand; that part of the property was not a valid nonconform- ing use because it was not previously used as open storage. The city appealed, arguing that by tearing down the building, Schwartz lost any right to claim a nonconforming use for any part of the lot. Schwartz also appealed. He argued he was entitled to an occupancy per- mit because he continually used the entire property for an auto salvage busi- ness since 1971. The court reviewed the board's decision, not the lower court's. DECISION: Reversed and returned to the lower court. The board did not address Whether Schwartz was entitled to a certificate of occupancy based on a nonconforming use, so the decision was reversed and