Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/04/1996

Home

May 1996 -- Page'3 "screen" of detached dwellings around the perimeter -- would ensure the project's compatibility with the area. The property was never used for single- family residences anyway, and was surrounded by nonresidential and multi- family uses. In fact, the exact project could have been developed as town- houses (which were allowed under the old zoning as a conditional use) with only minor changes to the lot lines. Although the property's maximum density increased for condominiums, it would have been even higher if developed entirely as townhouses. Contrary to Boland's claims, the rezoning did not benefit Benson alone. The city showed the rezoning would increase surrounding property values. Putting the vacant property to use again would get rid of nuisances and eyesores. The rezoning was reasonably related to the community's general welfare. It provided affordable housing in the face of a housing shortage. The resulting development would provide jobs and more residents to pay property taxes. Anderson Ihsurance v. City of Belgrade, 803 _P..2d 648 (1990). Little v. Board of County Commissioners of Flathead County, 631 P. 2d I282 (1981). Variance -- Developer Asks Board to Apply 14-Year-Old Variance Crowley'v. CourviIIe, U.S. Second Circuit Court of Apl2eals, Docket No. 95-7160 (New York) 1996 Internet: http://www.tourolaw, edu/abouttlc/2ndcircuit/february96/95' 7160.html Before 1975, a parcel in the business district of Southampton, N.Y.,.was used as a gas station, auto repair shop, and junkyard. Town residents generally considered it an eyesore. In 1975, Johnston bought the property as a site for her real estate brokerage business. She planned to renovate the gas station into a 2,400-square-foot office building and build a new tw$-story, 7,200-square-foot office building. The village's Zoning and Building Construction Regulations required buildings that size to have 64 off-street parking sPaces. Johnston planned to have only nine spaces, so she applied for a variance. The Zoning Board granted the variance because it wanted the gas station replaced. However, it imposed the condition that the property had to be used for office -- not retail -- purposes. Notes from the meeting stated Johnston would have to reapply for a variance if she wanted to use the property for any use other than an office building. Johnston renovated the existing building, but never built the new one. Crowley bought the property in 1978 and ran his own real estate brokerage business there for 10 years. In 1989, he presented to the village Planning Board a plan to replace the 2,400-square-foot office building with a 12,800-square- foot retail building. The plan had only nine parking spaces. Crowley claimed he could rely on the 1975 variance and need not apply for another. The plan- ning board disagreed, explaining Crowley's proposed building was larger and for retail use, so he had to apply for a new parking variance. The planning