01/06/05 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Z.B. December 10, 2004 -- Page 3 CONNECTICUT (10/19/04) -- Biber operated Strawberry Park, a "recreation campground," under a special permit. Strawberry Park offered a full range of recreational and entertainment activi- ties. Additionally, several times a 7ear, Strawberry Park held a music festival. Although the majority of festival tickets were sold to campers, tickets were also sold to the general public. Neighboring property owners sued, arguing Strawberry Park was violating the zoning regulations by holding the music festivals. The court ruled in the property owners' favor. B iber subsequently appealed, claiming the music.festivals were accessory uses to the use of the property as a camp~ound. DECISION: Affirmed. The sale of music festival tickets to members of the general public consti- tuted a violation of the zoning regulatiohs. The zoning regulation allowed for accessory uses of the camp~ound, such as operating a grocery store, swimming pool, and golf course. Music festivals could be a proper accessory use provided they were subordinate to the princi- pal use of the property asa campground. However, music festivals were not a valid accessory use when members of the general public were allowed to attend. Accessory uses were, by definition, uses located on the same lot that were subordinate and customarily incidental to the principal use. Attendance by members of the general public at music festivals was not subordinate and customarily incidental to the principal use of the property, as a campground. Clearly, the members of the general public who used the facility on a day-to-day basis exceeded the dimensions of subordinate and incidental use. If Biber wanted to continue to conduct music festivals open to the general public, he would have to apply for a special permit. see also: Doyen ~. Zoning Board of Appeals, 789 A.2d 473 (2002). see also: Blakeman v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 846 A.2d 950 (2004). Zoning Approval -- Zoning change quickly approved for developer who made township donation Competing developer claims due l~rocess rights violated Ci~Clm)n: Thornb~t~ Noble Ltd. v. Thornburv Township, U.S. District Court ~/br r/~e Eczsrern District rJf Pennsylvania, No. 99-6460 (2004) PENNSYLVANIA t ll)/22/04) -- Thornbury Noble Ltd. wanted to develop a shop- ping center. Although it could be built under the current zoning code, its access had to be improved if the building was moved partially onto two acres of adjacent residentially-zo~ied [and. Consequen.£1y. it requested a zoning change t'or rh{)se two acres. F, ~r !,.,~,'~ './ears. Thornburv tried to con,~ince the [ownship to make r. he zoning ;Sj 200a '51Jinlan 9*Jl)lishin9 qfouD. &ny reprdauction is prohibited. For more iniorrnation please call (617) 542-0048. 95