Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/02/2003

Home

7,.g. August 25, 2003 -- Page 7' Conditional Use -- Property owners apply hotel permit after apartment permit rejected Was the residential suite hotel actually an apartment building? MAINE (7/3/03) -- The Jordans owned property located in the commercial and light industr/al (C-LI) zoning district. The Jordans apphed to the planning board for a conditional use land development permit for a project that was character/zed as an apartment complex. The planning board approved the application, but the zoning board of ap- peals vacated the approval because new residential apartments were a-prohib- ited. use in C-LI areas. The Jordans did'no( appeal the decision. Rather, they fried another applica- tion for a conditional use permit that referred to the project as a residential suite hotel. The project consisted of an existing three-bedroom residential house and two buildings containing slx two-bedroom units and a 70~seat restaurant serving break2'ast and lunch. It was noted that each unit had a kitchen and a full bathroom. When the planning board reviewed the application, the focus centered on whether the development was a hotet, an apartment, or multiple dwelling. Hotels were permitted in C-LI areas, but new apartment buildings, were not allowed'. At the hearing, the Jordans testified the "hotel" would accommodate one-night residents as well as longer term clients. While there would be no front desk, residents would register in the restaurant, and cleaning would be accompLished on an "as needed" basis at the guest's request. Finally, all units would be fur- rfished and would have access to telephones. The board determined the de,(elopment was not a hotel because there was no clear break between long-term iod~gs or overnight residents. Also, the board noted that there were full dwelling units in the building. The Jordans appealed to the ZBA, which affirmed the board. They then appealed to the lower court, and their appeal was again denied. The Jordans filed this appeal, claiming the.board asked inapprophate ques- tions about room service, billing, and other matters. DECISION: Affirmed. The board properly determined that the three-bedroom home and six two- bedroom Living units were dwell/ng units, and were not temporary guest rooms ordinarily found in a hotel. Here, the relevant ordinance defined hotel as an establishment with resi- dence units that were temporary and shorter term. Dwelling units, on the other hand, were defined as, "A building designed or intended to be used, or used exclusively for residential occupancy by three (3) or more families Living inde- pendently of one another and containing three (3) or more dwelling units, in- . cluding apartment buildings and condominiums." The court noted it was Jordan's burden to prove the stpacture was a permit- ted use. It was not an error for the board to conclude the type of residence units 105