Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/06/2003

Home

I ! I I I I i I I I I I ! I i I I Z.B, FebrUary 25, 2003 -- Page 7 DECISION: Affirmed. The coffee shop could be inclUded in 'the library. An accessory use was a use customarily incidental and subordinate to the principal use on the same lot. Accessory uses existed in Cases where 'the use in. question enhanced the principal use of the prop. erty~ The incidental use neces- sadly depended on the principal use, and the inc/dental use had! to.further the principal use of the property..' The coffee· shop encompassed only a very small, portion of the square foot- age of the property. The operational.plans'called for the Shop to serve only beverages and baked goods, and not to allo~v cooking, on the site. The facts .supported the assertion, the coffee shop would enhance the expe- rience of library patrons by allowing them to purchase something small to eat or drink while at the library. Also, the coffee shop was not intended to be a separate destination point distinct from the library. Citation: Morgan v. City of Wyoming,. Court of Appeals of Michigan,- No. 235661 (2003). see also: Lerner v. Bloomfield. Township, 308 N. W-.2d 701 (i981). see also: Meyer v. City of Center Line, 619 N.w. 2d 182 (2000). Appeal -- Commission finds two Separate pieces of land contiguous Allowx developers to put all development On only.one prOPerty ALABAMA (01/10/03) -- Fort Morgan Paradise Joint Venture owned'two pieces of property on either side of a separate parcel of property owned.by Gulf Highlands Development, LLC. The Baldwin County Planning and Zoning CommissiOn considered Paradise's application for a. Planned Residential Development, The commis~ sion approved a plan. allowing Paradise to build 473 condominium units.' The plan took hnto consideration both pieces of property, deeming them to be Con- tiguous because they were o~y separated by public easements.. Because the eastern parcel had better beach frontage, Paradise proposed putting all approved units on the eastern parCel..This new plan was approved. A local civic association sued, arguing the two parcels could not be consid- ered. contiguous. ~. The court ruled in favor of the commission. The association appealed. - ': · DECISION: Reversed. ' The two.properties could not be considered contigUous. Under state law, "contiguous'" meant there had to be a "touching at some point." An exception to the actual touching-at-some-point rule was when the' property was divided by a public roadway. The parcels of land were separated by a conservation easement and a.stretch of private beach. They were also separated by several undeveloped public roads. Although the easements did not divide the two parcels,, the separately owned 141