Is this an expansion of a legal nonconforming B&B?

[michaelskis]

Let’s say a person owns a bed and breakfast. The B&B part is located in a historic part of a structure and the owner’s quarters are located in an attached dwelling that does have an opening for direct access into the B&B. It was put in before the ZO was in place and has gone through extensive legal challenges and such.

However, the owners now want to build a second floor onto the section that is residential use only. This area would not have any access to the historic section of the B&B and would only be accessible from the owner’s quarters. The B&B activity (square footage of areas accessible by gusts) would not be expanding but the overall building would be.

Would you classify this as an expansion of a nonconforming use?

[Kingmak]

Well there are a lot of unknowns here. Is it in a Historical Overlay district? What's the zoning? Are B&B's permitted by right in this zone? Are residential uses permitted?

[JNA]

My fair city code states -

1) No such nonconforming uses shall be enlarged or increased, nor extended to occupy a greater area of land than was occupied at the effective date of adoption or amendment of the ordinance codified in this title;

[btrage]

If the expansion is not associated with the B&B then I would say it is not. But you'll need detailed architectural/contractor plans to make sure.

[Kingmak]

I would look at the uses. Are residential uses and/or commercial uses allowed in the current zone? Expansion to a historical building altogether could nix it. But if not, it just may need to be zoned for mixed use.

[SW MI Planner]

If residential uses are permitted by right in that zoning district, than the addition of a second floor residential is permitted by right. If it were for the B&B that would be an expansion of the nonconforming use and not allowed.

[estromberg]

If residential uses are permitted by right in that zoning district, than the addition of a second floor residential is permitted by right. If it were for the B&B that would be an expansion of the nonconforming use and not allowed.

I would agree with this. The B&B is the non-conforming use and is not being expanded.