1 development permit is required when an access road is <br />2 established. 1d, Section 7.120. We perceive close similarity, <br />3 if not identity, between the words "use" and "development" in <br />tl the city's ordinance. <br />5 Case law from other jurisdictions supports petitioner's <br />6 argument that an access road to an industrial site is an <br />7 accessory industrial use which cannot be established on <br />8 residentially zoned land. See e.g., Chelmsford v. Byrne, 371 <br />~,imbach_Construction Cornpan v. <br />9 E2d 1307 (Mass App 1978) ; Lc <br />10 Baltimore, 257 Ad 635, 264 A?.d 109 (1970) ; set 9erer.allV, R. <br />11 Anderson, American _Law of 7oninq 2d §9.27 (1976). We find <br />12 these authorities per suasive. <br />13 Based on the foregoi.ng# we uphold petitioner's challenge to <br />14 this aspect;. of the city's decision. Establishment of the <br />15 proposed access road is a use of land zoned R-2. We view the <br />16 use as one which is accessory to Permawood's industrial plant. <br />17 The list of permitted uses in the R--2 district does not include <br />1t3 such an accessory use. <br />19 Based on the above, we proceed to the city's alternative <br />20 contention that the proposed access goad can be authorized, <br />21 despite the zoning conflict, because of its historical status <br />22 as a road serving industrial facilities in the area. <br />23 The city mound that even if Permawood' J use ot: land zoned <br />24 R-2 as an access road was not permitted by the code, the <br />25 proposal should be approved because "...this access location <br />26 has been utilized for many years by all previous industrial <br />Page 8 <br />