Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/01/2004

Home

.. Z.B. February 25, 2004 --Page 3 Several planning and zoning commission members were concerned with the expansion of a parking lot connected to Scott's restaurant. Accordingly, a planning and zoning officer investigated and issued a cease and desist order. The order stated "[p]lease be advised that,.although you submitted a 'draw- ing' of your site as part of your sign permit submittal supporting documenta- tion, the application was for sign permit approval only, not site plan approval. My research of the use of your site revealed the area shown as 'overflow park- ing' on said sign permit supporting documentation drawing was a grassed land- scape area with only one row of parking on the paved area at the time you took possession of the restaurant site ... lA]ny expansion of your parking area re- quires site plan approval." The order concluded with ,[i]n order to remedy this violation, you must remove the gravel from the formerly grassed area and restore the subject area with loam and seed." At a later hearing, the board approved the zoning officer's decision. Scott sued, arguing the zoning officer's decision was unreasonable because the restaurant was a nonconforming use. DECISION: In favor of the board. The board could uphold the zoning officer's decision. The initial zoning regulations were adopted by the town in '1'964. Scott claimed a restaurant had operated on the property since the 1920s. Although it could be inferred the restaurant had been in operation for a number of years, there was no evidence it was legally operating at the time of the zoning regulations. Even if the restaurant was a valid nonconforming use, the zoning regxtla- lions provided the use could not be expanded to occupy additional buildings or outside space. Although Scott claimed the entire premises (the restaurant and pounds) constituted a nonconforming use, and there was no change in the overall character of the use, there was such a change. Although a mere increase in the amount of business done pursuant to a nonconforming use was not an illegal expansion of the original use, Scott paved over an existing grassy area with picnic tables in an aquifer protected zone. Scott changed the character of the grassed area by pav/ng over it and expand- ing the parking lot. This was obviously a change in the existing use. Citation.· Scott v. Town of North Stonington Zoning Board of Appeals, SuperiOr Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of New London at Norwich, No. 12_5429 (2003). see also: Lewis v. Planning and Zoning Commission, 771 A.2d 167 (2001). see also: Harris v. Zoning Commission, 788 A.2d 1239 (2002). Signs -- Billboard erected in 1988, four feet over height limit City claims owner cannot rely upon 1977 ordinance to determine conformity NORTH CAROLINA (12/16/03) -- RAcker owned land on which on which a billboard was erected in 1988 pursuant to an Asheville city permit. 87