Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/03/2003

Home

214 Page 8 --March 10, 2003 Z.B. Citation: Chin Brothers Inc. v. Williams Township Zoning Hearing Board, Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, No. 854 C.D. 2002 (2003). see also: Jones'v. Zoning Hearing Board of the Town of McCandtess, 578 ?i.2d 1369 (1990). see also: Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992). Nonconforming Use -- Property used as gas station since 1941 Property owner at time of zoning change had no intention of continuing gas sales CONNECTICUT (01/28/03) -- In 1941, Bon~orni opened a gas station. In 1988, it was discovered underground gasoline storage tanks on the gas station property had leaked and contaminated abutting property owned by Cumberland Farms. Cumberland Farms sued Bongiorni, and Bongiorni transferred the prop- erty to Cumberland Farms as a settlement. While the litigation was still pending,' the town revised its zoning regula- tions to prohibit fuel storage facilities in the district containing the property. Cumberland Farms filed a site plan proposing to demohsh the existing sta- tion and build a new one encompassing both pieces of property. The plan was denied. Cumberland Farms sued, and the court ruled in its favor. The Zoning Boar of Appeals of the Town of Westbrook appealed, arguing the court improperly substituted its judgment for that of the board. DECISION: Reversed. The court improperly overruled the board. In denying'Cumberland Farms' request, the board stated the reopening of the gasoline station was not permitted as a preexisting, nonconforming use. For a use to be legally nonconforming, it had to be in existence at the time the zoning regulation matting the use nonconforming was enacted. It was true the property had been mainly used as a gas station for over 50. years. However, on the date the zoning regulations were revised, the property was not being used as a gas station. Bongiorm still owned the property, and he stated by letter that he had no intention of using the property as a gas station: Consequently, the use was not validly established as nonconforming, and the court improperly substituted its opinion for that of the board. Citation: Cumberland Farms Inc. v. Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Wesrbrooh Appel. late Court of Connecticut, No. AC 2]047 (2003). see also: Bloom v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 658 A.2d 559 (1995). see also: Claydon v. Finiz. ie, 508 A.2d 845 (t986).