Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/02/1996

Home

Page 8--iMarch 15, 1996 Z.B. Altho~gh the ordinance did not define the term "principal use," it used the term ig the singular. For example, it defined permitted accessory uses as "[p]rivate ~arages and other accessory uses and structures which are custom- arily incidental to the principal use and do not include any activity normally conducted;as a business." The ordinance had a section called "conformance" that dealt With how its regulations would apply. It stated, "no building or part thereof shtdl be erected, moved or altered unless in conformance with the regulations herein specified for the district in which it is located." Regarding land in business districts, the ordinance said it could not be used for commer- cial purposes "unless said business is operated from a building and said building conforms ~o all applicable zoning regulations." The ordinance's stated pur- pose was to "guide and regulate the orderly growth and development" of the borough, t6 protect the communi, ty's character and welfare,, and to keep the borough s~fe. To do so, it would 'regulate heights, design, appearance, num- ber of stories and size of buildings and other structures as well as their place- ment on th'e land." Sun apbealed to court, and the court reversed. It found the ordinance did allow two principal uses on one lot. The zohing board appealed. DECISION: Reversed. The lo~er court improperly overturned the board's decision. The ordi- nance did ~ot allow two principal uses on one property as of right. The ap- peals courtlnoted Sun never applied for a variance to have the gas station and minimart oh the same property, and still had a right to do so. As a g4neral rule of New Jersey law, if the ordinance did not expressly allow a usa., the use was prohibited. This ordinance's language was restric- tive, and die not expressly allow two principal uses on a single property. Although the ordinance did not define "principal use," use of the term implied the;re could be only one main use. (The dictionary defined "princi- pal" as "firS. t," "chief," or "most important.") Also, the ordinance referred to a single prir!cipal use when defining the relationship between accessory struc- tures and principal uses. The ordinance's "conformance" section sought to restrict allowed uses to only those l!sted. The ordinance listed all primary and accessory uses allowed in each district. It did not allow accessory uses to be those "normally con- ducted as a business." Therefore, Sun's prOposed convenience store could not be a use accessory to the gas station. Both had to be considered principal uses. Although e~ch use would have been allowed on the property by itself, Sun could not develop the property for a mixed use without getting a variance. Sun's i~terpretation of the ordinance would change the meaning of the word "prin~ipal." If that were allowed, people could argue that "a school, restaurant, and a gas station, as well as other principal uses, could exist on the same lo~."