Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/06/2003

Home

110 Page 4 -- December 24, 2002 Z.B: Although the zoning committee denied the permit, the. board of adjustment reversed the committee's decision. The town sued, and the court concluded the board had failed to identify any error in the committee's decision and had instead substituted its Own judgment regarding the merits of Carew's permit application. Carew appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. The board substituted its own decision in place of the committee's. The-board was not empowered under the ordinance tO set aside the zoning committee's decision. The ordinance ciearly imposed a duty on the zoning com'mittee to weigh and balance the factors set out in the ordinance for condi- tional use approvals. The board was to decide the matter based upon whether the decision, determination, or interpretation being appealed failed to follow the ordinance. Neither the board nor Carew pointed to any interpretation error on the part of the zoning committee. Both simply claimed the zoning ordinance and appli- cable statutes allowed the board to make its own decision. Citation: The Town of Dayton v. The Waupaca County Zoning Board of Adjustment, Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, Dist. 4, No.-01.-3025 (2002). see also: Town of Hudson v. Hudson ToWn BOard of Adjustment, 461 N.W. 2d 827 (1990). see also: Kapischke v. Count,,/of Walworth, 595 N. W.2d 42 (1999). Nonconforming Use -- Sign lessee attempts to obtain new permit Department of transportation denies, claiming new application different from renewal FLORIDA (11/15/02) -- Hobbs purchased a piece of property that included an outdoor advertising sign. Cape Kennedy KOA teased the sign. It obtained and continuously main- tained a state permit authoriz/ng the use. For-15. years, KOA maintained the permit. During that time, Brevard County. rezoned the property to residential use only. Although the rezorfing caused the advertising sign to become a nonconforming use,. the count)' and the depart- ment of transportation (DOT) determined.the use was legalty existing. KOA asked DOT to cancel its sign.permit. No one n0tified Hobbs of this action. When Hobbs discovered the sign permit had been-canceled, Hobbs tried m obtain a new sign. permit. A county official certilSedHobbs' sign was a legally existing nonconforming use. Based on this certification, HobbS applied to DOT for a sign permit. DOT denied the application. Hobbs sued. However, his sign application was again denied. Hobbs appealed. While acknowledging that it renewed KOA's perrmt an- nually even alter I,iobbs' land was rezoned, DOT contended a distinction exSsted I I ! I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I !