Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/03/2005

Home

goB. January 10, 2005 -- Page 5 had met all necessary conditions, Delphic never applied for a special permit, although it Was required to do s° -under the zoning bylaws. Despite the lack of a specialipermit, a building inspector issued Delphic a building permit. Delphic commenced: using the property for truck operations, and continued to do so for many years. Fifteen years later_,: a Prospective tenant of the property sought apprtval tO use Delphic's property for-the StOrage and repair of tracks. However, the build- ing inspector denied the tenant!s application because the property failed to comply with the special-permit requirements of the zoning bylaws. The Board of Appeals affm'ned the building inspector's decision. Delphic sued, and:the court ruled in favor of the' board. Delphic ap- pealed, arguing the site-plan aPproVal had the same effect as the granting of a special permit. .. DECI~ON: Affirmed, The approval of Delphic's site plan did not constitute the fUnctional equiva- lent of a special permit: Under the town's zoning bylaws, the provisions controlling site-plan ap- proval and the pkovisions controlling special permits appeared in separate sections. The court determined that by utilizing separate sections, the bylaws differentiated between the proCessing of applications for site-plan review and the processing o~ applications for ~pecial permits. Here, the Court determined that the site-plan approval simply stated Delphic's application for site-plan review :had been ~anted subject to conditions that were unrelated to any of the factors enumerated under the section regarding special permits. Moreover, the board had the discretionary power to deny a special permit even if Delphic demonstrated it satisfied those conditions set out in the special-permit section. Consequently, since there Were significant differences between the two sections, and in absence of any specific findings in regard to a special perm/t, Delphic's argument that the site~plan approval was the functional equivalent of a special permit failed. see also: Cumberland Farms [nc. v. Planning Board of Bourne, 779 N.E. 2d 159 (2002). see also: Britton v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Gloucester, 794 N.E. 2d 1198 ( 2oo.~ ). Equal Protection -- Board treats tw° similar lots differently on same day One lot had a preexisting nonconforming use Citation: Rockdale County v. Burdette, Supreme Court of Georgia, No. S04A0719 (2004) 2005 Quin~an PuBfishin§ Group. ^n~/reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 5424048. 99