Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/03/2008

Home

March 10, 20081 Volume 2 I No.5 " \ j The court found the District was residential, and that the Board's limitations on the operations were therefore lawful. The court said that in "non-traditional, uniquely zoned, multi-use geographical ar- eas" like the District, a determinatioh of whether a geographic area is zoned "residential" for purposes of the state law must be based on facts and circumstances. The court found that residential development was at the center of the Plan and the definition of the District. The court said this conclusion was supported by the fact that goals and policies centered primarily on residential concerns. The court con~ cluded that the District was zoned "residential," even though it was not zoned "'Residential' with a capital 'R'" and permitted other uses. Accordingly, the court found that the Board had the authority, under state law, to prohibit asphalt and concrete batch operations. The court remanded the issue for further proceedings so that the Board could "come forward with some findings of fact and conclu- sions to support its decisions." See also: Merlin Myers Revocable Trust v. Yellowstone County. 2002 MT 201,311 Mont. 194,53 P.3d 1268, 15? a.C.R. 431 (2002). , "1 I Case Note: In its decision, the court also addressed the issue of whether the Board had the authority to approve the CUP prior to TFP obtaining a State-approved reclamation contract. The court recognized that the state law and local regulations conflicted. The state law required Board certification of compliance with zoning regulations before issuing a reclamation contract. The zoning reg- ulations required a finalized reclamation contract prior to approv- al of a conditioned use permit. The court said it could not resolve the conflict; such resolution was up to local and state bodies to resolve. In the meantime, the court said, the Board could not is- sue a CUP under the zoning regulations without TFP first obtain- ing a reclamation contract from the State. Accordingly, the court concluded, the Board's issuance of the CUP without TFP first ob- taining a reclamation contract was unlawful. Notice/Cond!tions-Residents seek to invalidate use and bulk variances granted to a developer, authorizing a mixed-use project R,esidents allege that pJIblic notice for the project was' deficient and a condition was an "unlawful exaction" Citation: Pond Run Watershed Ass'n v. Township of Hamilton Zoning Rd. of Adjustment, 397 N.J. Super. 335, 937 A.2d 334 (App. Div. 2008) 7 131