Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/06/2003

Home

I I I I I I I I ! I I I I i I I I I I Z.B. January 25, 2003.-- Page 5 In seeking a special exception, the applicant had the burden of establishing the proposed.use satisfied the reqUirements of the zoning ordinance. The ordinance, was not ambiguous merely because it used the .phrase "com- mercial or industrSal" rather than specifying a particular zoning category,, such as C-1 or I-1. The zoning ordinance provided for 13 districts and speci, fical!y designated three as commercial and one as industrial. The ordinance did not place Enterprise Park zones in either category. ' -' The mere fact some limited commercial uses.were permittedin the Enter- prise Park district did not transform it into' a commercial one: When the regula- tions were f~rst drafted, the township intended the zone to be a hybrid or tran- sition one. In fact, the district permitted residential uses as Well. Because the Enterpr/se Park district was. not specifically included in one.°f the three designated commercial ones, it was not a commercial district.. Citation: Lee v. Zoning Hearing Board of Str°ud Township, Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, No. 1349 C.D. 2002 (2002). see also: Edgmont Township v. Springton Lake MonteSsori School INC., 622'i A. 2d 418 (1993). see also: Montgomery Crossing Associates v. Township of Lower GWYnedd, 758 A.2d 285 (2000): Special Exception.--. Local residents fight drug treatment center CONNECTICUT (12/17/02) -- Municipal Funding LLC owned property in a moderate density residential district and a commercial artery district. It filed an application to the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of. Waterbury for a special exception to open a convalescent home. Specifically, itproposed to use the property as a long-term, drug free residential, treatment facility for adoles- cents with substance abuse problems..The facility would-be 9perated by the APT Foundation, an affiliate of the. Yale School of Medicine. . . Opponents to the' special exception spoke at the Public hearing: Several. residents who lived near the proposed facility expressed concerns about neigh- borhood safety, particularly because many people' often .walked at night. Oth- ers feared the facility would· decrease the property rental' values in the area. The board voted to deny the spec/at exception. · Municipal sued, and the court upheld the board's ·decision. Municipal appealed, arguing because the record lacked any.evidenCe 'of actual public safety concerns, the board acted arbitrarily and in abuse of its discretion. DECISION: Reversed. The board acted arbitrarily. There was no evidence or testimony to warrant a finding this particular proposed facility posed a threat to public.safety. The facility was not locked and the program did not allow residents t° keep automobiles on the property. In 30 years of running similar progranxsi the director 123