Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/02/2003

Home

36 Page 4 -- December 10, 2002 When the board concluded the proposal did not meet the definition of a hotel', the Rescue Mission did not appeal. Instead, the Rescue Mission changed the site plan and recharacterized the' facility as a "multi-family dwelling." At a later date, in response to an inquiry by the city attorney, the zoning inspector supervisor, Strickland, issued a memorandum of his opinion stating the multi-family building as proposed was permitted, but the "use'? would not be permitted. The Comprehensive Planning CommisSion reviewed-the plan and deter- mined the fac/lity was a permissible multi-family dwelling. The commission referred the matter to the city council and. recommended, approval. Oakwood and Jones again appealed lo the board for an interpretation-, pointing to Strickland's memorandum and the commission's recommendation as a basis of appeal. The board f'mally ruled that the proposed hcitity could not be properly classified, as a "multi-family dwelling," which was.permitted. Instead, the fac/iity was a type of"transitional housinffemergency shelter," which was.not permitted. The Rescue Mission appealed, and the court decided the board had. "juris- diction to review the order, decision, or determination of Zoning Inspections Supervisor Strickland," and affLrmed the board's decision. The Rescue Mis- sion appealed. DECISION: Reversed. The permit should have been approved. The house was permitted as a multi-family dwelling despite Strickland's opinion. Strickland was an administrative official and his memorandum was an opinion only, therefore it was without.binding force. Here; he was expr. ess- lng only his belief. His statements were advisory and no legal rights were af- fected by the "order ... decision ... or determination" of the administrative official. The board shouldn't have taken his opinion as binding: Citation: Jones v. Board of Adjustment of the City of Raleigh,. Court of Appeals of North Carolina, No. COA]-1274 (2002). see also: Midgette v. Pate, 380 S.E. 2d 572 (]989). Building Expansion -- County-owned property expanded within town Was county subject to town's zoning requirements? NEW YORK (11/07/02) --The county adopted a resolution to expand a public works building on county-owned property located in'. the town of Ithaca. The expanded structure was to be used by the highway, building, and ground divisions. In learning of the. proposal, the town's supervisor notified county officials that since the ex/sting building w. as. located in a residential area, the-town's zoning ordinance required special' approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals, as well as site plan approval from the*Planning Board. The county did not seek approval'and adopted a resolution concluding that-' the project was not subject to the town's, zoning ordinance. The town responded