Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/04/1996

Home

Z.B. February 1996 -- Page DECISION: Affirmed. -The trial court properly found Pease violated the subdivision law three times. Pease first violated the subdivision Iaw when he subdivided Lot 90C into Lots 90C and 90D, and conveyed Lot 90D to Reed without getting the town's approval. Pease again violated the law when he and his wife acquired Lot 90E from Giffard. MunicipaI approval for this subdivision could have been waived only if Pease acquired Lot 90E by himself, rather than with his wife. Although Lots 90E and 90C abutted, Lot 90E was conveyed to Pease and his wife, and technically only Pease-- not his wife m was an abutting landowner. The third violation was when Pease mortgaged half of Lot 90 to the bank. In so doing, Pease effectively divided his interest in the lot. Planning Board of the Town of Naples v. Michaud, 444 A.2d 40 (1982). Signs -- Restaurant Claims Temporary Banner Is Not Sign Secretary, Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. Handy Family Enterprises, 660 A.2d 309 (VermonO 1995 Handy Family Enterprises owned a lot in a large industrial park in Williston, Vt. Handy applied for a land use permit to begin construction and operation of a restaurant. In August 1990, the District 4 Commission issued a permit, but denied Handy's request for four internally illuminated signs the planning com- mission had previously allowed. Under the permit, Handy had to get the commission's written approval before installing any exterior signs. Handy renewed its application for four internally illuminated signs. In February 1991, the commission issued an amended permit, approving two in- ternally illuminated awning signs and a freestanding parking lot directional sign. The permit contained two conditions: the installation of signs was limited to those approved, and any other signs or changes without the commission's written approval were strictly prohibited. On Feb. 27, 1991, Handy placed two 2-by-10-foot banners outside the restaurant. The banners, which advertised the restaurant's opening, remained outside for 11 months. In May 1991, Handy put up a 2-by-20-foot and a 2-by-30-foot banner, each advertising the restaurant's specials. These banners were up for about 20 days. On May 15, i991, the District Coordinator told Handy the commission found the banners violated the permit. Handy asked the commission for written approval of the banners. The commission denied the request, saying it should be in the form of a permit amendment application. Handy never submitted such an application. On May 20, the coordinator issued Handy a notice of alleged violation. Handy put up a fifth banner five days later advertising a chicken dinner special. This banner, which was about the same size as the others, stayed up about 40 days. Handy renewed its application for an internally illuminated, building- mounted sign. The commission issued an amended permit in October 1991. The permit prohibited the installation of any temporary signs, banners, posters, or flags without the commission's prior written approval.