Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/05/2004

Home

Z.B. June 25, 2004 -- Page 3 Barristers sued, and the court ruled in the council's favor. Barristers appealed, arguing there was no zoning code expressly requiring buildings to abut the street. DECISION: Affirmed. The commission's consideration of aesthetics was not arbitrary or unlaw- ful. Zoning was a police power intended to protect the public health, safety, and general welfare. Since the police power had to be flexible enough to re- spond to changing conditions and needs, the more recent trend in zoning cases was recognition of a governmental interest in maintaining community aesthet- ics. hnportantly, the appearance, of a community related closely to its citizens' happiness, comfort, and general well-being. A municipality could properly use its zoning authority to preserve the char- acter of designated areas in order to promote the overall quality of Ill&within the city's boundaries. Ultimately, although no apphcable zoning code expressly required all build- ings abut the street, the comm/ssion's decision was not arbitrary and was based primarily on the aesthetic orientation of the diner. see also: Henley v. Youngstown Board of Zoning Appeals, 735 N.E. 2d 433 (2000). see also: Gerijo [nc. v. Fairfield, 638 N.E. 2d .533 (1994). Site Plan -- Gas station files sketch plan :? Claims sketch plan gave it vested rights under old zoning ordinance Citation: [n re Champlain Oil Company, Supreme Court of Vermont, No. 2003-111 (2004) VERMONT (05/14/04) -- Champlgin Oil Company wanted to open a conve- nience store with gasoline sales in the town of Colchester. On Iv[ay 14, Champlain filed its first set of application materials, namely a sketch plan. On Sept. 16, the town adopted new zoning amendments that imposed new limits on convenience stores with gas sales. Under the new amendments, Champlain's proposed store was located too close to another gas station to be approved. On Oct. 3, Champlain filed a site plan application. The town failed to ap- prove Champlain's application because of the proposal's nearness to another gas station. Champlain sued, and the court ruled in the town's favor. Champlain appealed, arguing its May !4 application vested rights in the pre-amendment zoning laws for/ts Oct. 3 application. DECISION: AI~rmed. ~¢ '200~L ',3uinlan Publishing Group, Any reproduction is prot]lb~ted. For more information please call (617) 542-0048. 129