1111 E CASINO RD 2016-01-01 MF Import

r i�oM � ,,,� Page 4 Following are the principles which we have used to reach this conclusion. All quotes are from Rathkopf, The Law of Planning and 2oning. 1. "A use which is customarily incidental to the primary use is legal. Nowever, it is not legal to have an accessory use take over as the principal use" . (p. 56-21) . It is our contention that auto sales are not customarily incidental to auto repair. 2. "Some courts in holding an extension or enlargement invalid, have based their decision upon the grounds that a sub- stantial extension or enlargement is in all practical aspects, a change in the previously existing area" . (p. 59-1) . 3. "A non - conforming use cannot be enlarged as a matter of right ' . (p. 59-2) 4 . "The inception of a non-conforming use on a limite� part of Yhe plot does not necessarily con�titute a preemption of the entire plot for uses of that character. . .The criteria is whether the nature of the incipient non-conforming use, in light of the character and adaptibility to suci� use of the entire parcel manifestly implies an appropriation of the entirety to such use prior to the adoption of the restrictive ordinance" . (60-4) . In other words, to be legal, the nature of the non-conforming use must have been such to imply that the entire �arcel would eventually have to be used. It is our contention that this is not the case. 5. Generally, it may be sa.id tltat the person exercising the right Yo conduct a non-conforming use has no riyht to extend such use to a portion of the original tract not used for such purpose at the time of the restrictive ordinance. . . " "In the absence of evidence of such intent (to use the entire tract at the time the original law was passed) the ron-conforming user is limited to that portion of the tract in use at the time of passage of the zoning ordinance" . (60-5) . Arguments which may arise aqainst our position are as follows, (again from Rathkopf) : 1. "Some ordinances permit a chang from one non-conforming use to another in the same classification. " Our code does this, however, it is our contention that a "change i� not at issue here; it is an expansion.