Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/08/2005

Home

goB. July 10, 2005 -- Page 7 welfare of the citizens of St. Louis County. Additionally, the ordinance had the effect of precluding the operation of a transfer station on FWD South's property, where that use had been permitted before the county enacted the ordinance. By explicitly disallowing this previ- ously permitted land use in the affected area, the ordinance had the effect of amending the county's zoning rules. Each of these factors supported the Con- clusion that the ordinance was enacted primarily for zoning purposes. Consequently, the county was required to follow its own procedural safe- guards relating to zoning changes when it enacted the ordinance, and its failure to do so rendered the ordinance invalid. see also: Home Builders Association of Greater St. 'Louis Inc. v. City of Wildwood, 32 S.W. 3d 612 (2000).. Special Use-- 'Big box' store development includes gas station Station inclusion requires variances Citation: Carpionato v. Zoning Board of Review of the Town of Johnston, Superior Court of Rhode Island,' Providence, No. 2003-6753 (2005) RHODE ISLAND (05/23/05) -- HartfordAvenue Associates .wanted to renovate commercial property located in a general'business B2 zoning district. Part of the. development would be a BJ's Wholesale Club, which typically included gasoline pumps. Gasoline pumps were allowed in B2 zones by special-use permit only. Although a retail gasoline business had existed on the property in the past, it had been closed for several years. The gas tanks had been removed, and the construction of a new gas station would diminish the number of existing park- ing spaces. However, the zoning ordinance required a building the size of the proposed BJ's to include at least 634 parking spaces, which BJ's' would fail to meet after construction. To complete its project, Hartford applied for several:vari'ances regarding the parking area. At the hearings on the matter, a real estate expert testified any new tenant on the property would require some form of dimensional relief. Ulti- mately, the variances were granted. Carpionafo, a neighboring property owner, sued to challenge the board's decision. He claimed the variances allowing the construction of the gas station were clearly erroneous. DECISION: Judgment in favor of the board. The board'S grant of the special-use permit was not clearly erroneous. Gasoline stations were permitted in a B2 zone by special-use permit. Here, gasoline stations were neither new to the area nor to the subject property, as a gasoline station had previously operated on the subject property. The real estate expert indicated that the presence of the fuel station would increase the value of neighboring properties, and a traffic expert said the sta- tion would not have a negative impact on traffic circulation or safety. © 2005 Quinlan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more iniormation please call (6'i7) 542-0048. 217