Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/05/2004

Home

Z.B. December 10, 2003 -- Page ? [ . ownership and recorded in the land records. A "lot" was "a parcel of land to be o¢¢ppied by one principal building or a group of principal buildings and the accessory buildings or uses incident thereto, including such open spaces as are use~ in connection with the buildings." Although neither "area" nor '*site" was defined, both were places subject to "deyelopment." "Development" was defined as "any construction or grading activities of removal of vegetation to improved or unimproved real estate." Co*, sequently, it was clear special exceptions only referenced the exact area to be ~eveloped, not the entire lot. Citation: Balf Company v. Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Manchester, Appellate Court of Connecticut, No. AC 23313 (2003). seetalso: Raymond v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 820 A.2d 275 (2003). seeial, so: Borden v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 755 A.2d 224 (2000). Conditional Use -- Landowner claims wrong body reviewed land-use deaision Commission denies conditional use application for storage facility AL~AMA (09/23/03) -- Shades Mountain plaza L.L.C. owned a parcel of property zoned as a community business district. The parcel contained a sthp reta. il-shopping center and approximately three acres on which Shades Moun- tala wanted to build a self-storage facility. To do so, it filed an application for a conditional use. iThe planning and zoning commission denied the application. !Shades Mountain sued. The court ruled in favor of the commission. :Shades Mountain appealed. It argued since the city had created a board of zo~ng adjustment, the law required the board to be the body to consider con- dit~onal uses. Under local law, only a board of adjustment could hear special exceptions. Shades Mountain claimed "special exception" and "conditional use,"' were synonymous and used interchangeably in land-use law. DEcisION: Affirmed. The commission could correctly decide the issue. · Under the local zoning ordinance, "conditional use" and "special excep~ rio,n" were not used interchangeably. !While both terms referred to conditionally permitted uses in the general setise that the fight of the land owner to engage in such uses was not granted as a regular use by the applicable provision of the zoning ordinance but instead w~ conditioned on review and approval by a government entity on a case-by- case basis, they were treated under the zoning ordinance as two different types of conditionally permitted uses. Consequently, the ordinance stated requests for conditional uses were re- viewed only by the commission while special exceptions were reviewed only by ,the board. 139