Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/03/2008

Home

! i I j I I I 1 I ! I I i I I I I I I ! 1 I I I I .1 I i I I i i /,,\ ( ) (') December 10, 20071 Volume 11 No. 23 Stoltzfus wanted to sell part of his property to his brother, but the logging business was operated on the land that he wanted to convey. He applied to the board for a permit to move the log processing business to a different tract of land, but the board denied his request. Subsequently, he applied for a variance and a special exception permit to allow the op- eration of his business on.a different lot of his land, but these requests were similarly denied. Stoltzfus then asked the township's zoning officer for a determination as to whether the log processing business constituted a "forestry use." Importantly, forestry was defined as "the management of forests and timberlands ... through developing, cultivating, harvesting, transporting and selling trees for commercial purposes, which [did] not involve any land development." In addition, forestry was a permitted use by right in all zoning districts in the township. The officer determined that the business did not qualify, and Stoltzfus appealed to the board. The board affirmed the decision of the zoning of- ficer, and Stoltzfus appealed to the court. He claimed that his business- which consisted of traveling to various businesses throughout the state to purchase trees, cutting them down, trimming them, and transporting them as logs to his property-should have qualified as a permitted use. DECISION: Affirmed. ( While Stoltzfus argued that he cut down and transported trees for commercial purposes that did not involve land development, the appeals court found that Stoltzfus ignored the stated purpose of the planning code on which he relied-to encourage maintenance and management of forested space and promote the use of forested land. The appeals court noted that Stoltzfus did not claim to have forested land, but "forestry" was defined as the management and maintenance of land that contains a forest. Furthermore, the rules of statutory con- struction do not allow for the interpretation of a statute or an ordi- nance which produces an "absurd" result; the appeals court found that Stoltzfus' claim that the definition of forestry encompassed a business contained on land without trees, where trees were "merely transported via trucks in order to be cut," was an absurdity. There was a dissenting opinion in this case. That judge wrote that: "There [was] nothing in the law requiring that 'forestry activities' must take place on forested land ... Applying the relevant provisions of the [law] as written, Stoltzfus 'harvest[ed]' trees from other locations, cut them into logs on his property, 'sold' them, and then 'transport[ed]' them from his property to a saw mill for processing." . The dissenting judge opined that Stoltzfus' business should have qualified as forestry and would have reversed the decision of the board. ...... ~. 7 69