Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/18/2013 - Special

Home

Zoning Bulletin June 10, 2013 I Volume 7 I Issue 11 "premises," it then looked "to the common and approved usage of ' the word. The court found that Black's Law Dictionary defined "premises," in relevant part, as "[a] house or building, along with its grounds." It found that Webster's Third New International Dictionary defined "premises," in pertinent part, as "a specified piece or tract of land with the structures on it" or "the place of business of an enterprise or institution." Based on those definitions, the court concluded that the word "premises" in this case included the buildings and grounds associated with the place of business of Attitash Mountain Village —namely, vacation ownership units, including its registration office —regardless of whether the buildings and grounds were located on separate lots. Thus, here, although the sign and the registration office were on different lots, both were geographically located at the place of business of Attitash Mountain Village and, therefore, were on the same "premises." Accordingly, the sign was not a prohibited off premises sign. Addressing the Selectboard's argument that "premises" more accurately referred to a single lot of land, the court reasoned that, had it been the intent of the drafters of the Ordinance to interpret the word "premises" as a single lot of land, they could have done so by using the word "lot." See also: State v. Thiel, 160 N.H. 462, 999 A.2d 367 (2010). See also: General Linen Services, Inc. v. Franconia Inv. Associates, L.P., 150 N.H. 595, 842 A.2d 105 (2004). Case Note: The Selectboard had voiced concern that interpreting the word "premises" to mean the buildings and grounds associated with the place of business would lead to a proliferation of business signs in the Town. The court disagreed. It found such interpretation merely allowed for the placement of outdoor signs on the premises of the business. The court did not read the word 'premises " so broadly as to refer to multiple businesses located throughout Bartlett which happen to be operated by a single owner. Thus, while River Run also owned several other businesses at dif- ferent properties, it could not place signs related to one business on the property of another business. Zoning News from Around the Nation CALIFORNIA The California Supreme Court has determined that "local jurisdictions can ban marijuana operations." The court held that the state's Compas- sionate Use Act (CUA) and Medical Marijuana Program (MMP) did not © 2013 Thomson Reuters 11