Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/01/2007

Home

October 1, 20071Volume 11 No. 19 .-~ ; ) beach access. In a motion to dismiss, all pleadings had to be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party-here, Stockton. Mustique argued further that Stockton could not rely on its alleged representa.tion'that it had obtained city approval to use the beachfront lot. for beach access because one of the documents that it submitted to the court had advised Stockton that "[alll valid laws, zoning ordi- nances and regulations of all governmental bodies having jurisdiction shall beobserved.'1 Given that language, Mustique argued that, even if it had assured Stockton of beach access through the lot, Stockton was aware that use of the lot for could be revoked or affected by a, later law or ordinance. However, the court again could not rely solely on the two documents that Mustique produced to interpret the entire scope of the agreement. Regardless, Stockton's claim was that he was "induced to enter the pur- chase agreement by a false representation that city approval had already been obtained, not by a false representation that city approval could never be rescinded." Because it could not meet the requirements for dismissal, Mustique's 'request was denied and the case proceeded to trial. (') Nonconforming Use---:.Auto repairman claims home business should be grandfathered as a nonconforming use City claims existing use entirely different, not eligible for status ( ) --:.../ - Citation: City of Platte v. Overweg, 2004 SD 103, 2007 SD 94, 2007 WL 2460112 (S.D. 2007) SOUTH DAKOTA (08/29107)---:In July 1997, the city of Platte adopt- ed its first valid zoning ordinance. Certain uses that were made ille- gal by the ordinance were allowed to continue operating as noncon- forming uses; as long as they were in effect on the date the ZOnllg ordinance was enacted. This was commonly known as the grandfather clause. Under the ordinance, nonconforming uses were not to be en- larged upon, exp'anded, or extended. In the year that the ordinance was passed, Overweg had been work- ing full-time in a garage for a local car dealership and moonlighted doing auto repairs from the garage at his home. Some time after the ordinance passed, he received a building permit for a metal garage on another property that he 'owned. During the application process, Overweg told the city that the garage would be for residential purposes. At some point, he constructed a home on the same site and, in 1999, he moved there with his family. The site was in a district that was zoned residen- tial; among other restrictions, the ordinance did not permit any structure 7 81