Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/06/2003

Home

g.g. janUary.. 10, 2003 Page 5 By letter, the current, town. zoning compliance officer informed CranesT~ille that due to inactivity at the batch plant, the plant would need to obtain a Vari- ance. Cranesville appealed, and the zoning board of appeals found the plant was. a lawful pre-existing use with no-period of inactivity. The town sued, and the lower court, affm~ed the' decision.· The town appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. The pre-existing use.was lawful~ While there was conflicting testimony on the issue; no viable evidence challenged the. 1987 letter from the zoning enforcement officer that clearly advised Torrington that the intended use of the property was permitted under the ordinance. ' ' Despite subsequent inquiries independently made by the. zoning' officer, which led him to tell Torrington that a further review of the property's, use might be warranted, the failure to have ever rescinded the letter determination or to cause a review of the issue by the zoning board was fatal. Consequently, Tomngton's use was in compliance, with the town's 198'7 ordinance and had been legally created. Citation: Town of Johnsburg v. Town of Johnsburg Zoning Board of Appeals, Supreme Court of New York, App. Div., 3rd Dept., No.. 92045 (2002): see also: Squire.v. Conway, 256 A.D.2d 771. see also: Bonded Concrete v. Zoning Board of Appeals for the Town of Saugerties, 268 A.D.2d 771. Appeal -- Was planning board decision final? MASSACHUSETTS (1'2/02/02) -- Cumberland Farms Inc. owned and oper- ated a gasoline station located on a.triangular lot of land' that directly fronted a major traffic rotary in the town of Bourne. Wanting. to modify its use to include a retail convenience store witliin the existing building footprint, Cumberland fried an application for a building per- mit pursuant to the Bourne zoning bylaw. The filing of the application, and documents was made with the building inspector. The building inspector then referred the site plan to the planning board. The planning board conducted a public hearing. After a' hearmg,.'it denied Cumberland's· application. Cumberland sued, and. the. court 'afl'wined the planning-board's decision; Cumberland appealed, arguing no decision had actually been made on the application because the building inspector never formally ruled on the applica- tion as required by local law. DECI$I©N: A~l~rrned. The planning board's decision could be appealed. The planning board disapproved the site plan and so notified the building 119