Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/06/2003

Home

122 Page 4 January 25, 2003 Wacouta denied the variance and informed Ryan it would' not honor the variance granted them by the county. · Ryan sued, claiming based on the variance granted by the:county in 1972, he should be allowed to build a house on the lot with a reduced t0-foot sideyard setback. The court ruled the 1972 nonconforming use permit was still valid and Wacouta had waived enforcement 'of the restrictions. Wacouta appealed. DECISION: Reversed. Any fights Ryan had from the 1972 nonconforming use permit had long since expired. Ryan did not build a house on the property after receiving the 1972 Permit.: He clearly abandoned the nonconformmg use by not building on the prqperty. Under the zoning ordinance, Wacouta could make its township ordinance more restrictive as long as it was based on the same standards as the county ordinance. Wacouta's requirements were not different in nature from the county requirements. Only the size of the setback differed. Citation: Ryan v. Township of Wacouta, Court of Appeals of Minnesota, No. C9-02-510 (2002). see also: Frank's Nursery Sales Inc. v. City of Roseville, 295 N. W. 2d 604 (]980): see also: Altenburg v. Board of Supervisors of ?leasant Mo~md Township, 6]5 N. W. 2d 874 (2000). Special Exception -- Property owner claims zoning district.overlay creates colmnercial district PENNSYLVANIA (12/05/02) Lee filed an application with Stroud Town- ship, seeking a special exception to construct a 300 square-foot off-premises advertising si~ on her property. Her property was in a low-density residential zoning district.. However, ~; was also in an Enterprise Park zoning district, an overlay .to other zonmg districts. . Township orclinances allowed off-premises signs in commercial or indus- trial zoning districts. Such signs had to be located in accordance with the yard setbacks for structures. The zorfing hear/rig board held a hearing on Lee's application. Lee did not dispute off, premises signs were not permitted in a low-density residential dis- trict. However, she did argue the Enterprise Park district made the entire, dis- trict it.covered a commercial one. The board disagreed and'denied her application. Lee sued, and the court ruled in favor of the township. Lee appealed. She' argued the ordinance was ambiguous and claimed be- cause an Enterprise Park district was primarily devoted to commercial uses, it was, in fact, a commercial district. DECISION: Affirmed. Lee was not entitled ro erect the sign. I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I