Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/02/2003

Home

Z.B. September 10, -00o -- Page 5 enactment of the town's zoning code in 19'74. Since that time, the business had continued as a legal nonconforming use. The company was granted a variance in I997 to renovate the showroom. At about the same time,, the company started stonng lumber on roofed metal racks that measured as much as 25 feet in height. In doing so, the company increased the sales volume, but did not expand the product line. The town code provided it was unlawful to expand, enlarge, extend, recon- struct, or structurally alter any nonconforming use. The company applied for a determination that the recently installed metal racks would not constitute an improper expansion of the nonconforming use. The zoning board of appeals denied the application, and the company appealed. The lower court ganted the petition and annulled the board's decision. The board appealed. DECISION: Reversed. The board's denial was upheld on appeal. The court noted that zoning boards were vested with broad discretion and that courts could not substitute their discretion for that of the zoning board if the board's decision was supported by substantial evidence. In this instance, the zoning code clearly prohibited reconstruction or alter- ation of any nonconforming use. The replacement of ground level pallets with outdoor metal storage racks constituted an illegal expansion. Also, the court noted theke was uncontroverted evidence that the new stor- age racks posed an increased fzre hazard to nearby residential areas. Citation: In the Matter of 550 Halatead Corp. v. Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town/V~ilage of Harrison, Supreme Court of New York, App. Div., 2nd Dept., No. 2002-01514. (2003). see alto: Matter of Gilchriat v. Town of Lake George Planning Board, 255 A.D.2d 79t. Nonconforming Use -- Commercial building seeks vertical expansion · Argues degree of nonconforraity not increased PENNSYLVANIA (7/22/03) -- The landowners had a one-story commercial building that covered nearly the entire area of their property. The lot violated all yard and setback regulations 'applicable to .new construction in that zoning district.. However, since the e,'dsting structure predated the enactment of the zoning regulations, it waj allowed to continue as a protected, pr/or, noncon- forming use. · The landowners wanted to expand the structure vertically, and local resi- dents objected, contending the proposed addition would deprive them of light and air. The city's zoning administrator granted the landowners a building and oc- cupancy permit to expand the building from !7 feet to 40 feet. lll