Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/06/1996

Home

a fraternity house), and TAlC said it would make any changes necessary to comply with the ordinance (i.e., stop using it as a fraternity house). Moreover, CGC never appealed the city's denial of its use-permit application, so it appeared the building was not being used as a fraternity house. For the property to become a legal nonconforming use, TAlC had to show the city had written notice the building was being used as a fraternity house in violation of the ordinance. In iact, the only written notice the city had was that both COC and TAlC were not violating the ordinance. City of New Orleans v. Howard, 406 So.2d 718 (1981). Special .Use -- Board denies asphalt plant's permit based on community concerns Twin County Recycling Corp. v. Yevoli, 639 N.Y.S. 2d 392 (New York) 1996 Twin County Recycling Corp. had a special-use permit to operate an asphalt recycling plant in the town of Oyster Bay, N.Y. It applied to the town board for reneWal. At a hearing, community residents said the plant produced more odor, dust and noise than neighboring businesses. The town didn't present any expert or scientific evidence to support those concerns, but the board denied the applica- tion anyway. Twin County asked a court to review the board's decision. The court annulled the decision and ordered the board to grant the renewal. The board appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. The lower court properly ordered the board to grant the renewal. Besides objections from the community, no evidence supported the board's decision. Unlike variances (which allowed uses otherwise prohibited), a spe- cial-Use permit had to be granted if the applicant met the ordinance's stated conditions for one. There had to be good reasons for denying the use because the ordinance's criteria were meant to ensure the use was compatible with the ordinance's purposes. Because there was no good reason to deny the renewal, the board should have granted it. Matter of North Shore Steak House v. Board of A]ppeals, 331 N. Y.S. 2d 645. Matter of Lee Realty Co. v. V~Ilage of Spring Valley, 474 N.Y.S. 2d 475. Variance Does use variance granted for east side of property apply to the west side? L and G Associates Inc. v. Zoning Board of A]vjveals of the Cio'of Danbury, 673 A.2d 1146 (Com~ecticuO I996 Corporate Properties Inc. (CPI) bought a four-and-a-half acre parcel in a residential zone in Danbury, Conn. A road divided the five-lot parcel into an east parcel and a west parcel. The west parcel had one lot that was about a third of an acre. In 1978, CPI applied for a use variance to build a 90,000-square-foot office building on the east parcel. Although the application itself referred to the entire