Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/04/2008

Home

Zoning Bulletin or area in which trucks ... are parked, stored, or serviced, including the transfer, loading or unloading of goods. A terminal may include facilities for the temporary storage of loads prior to trans-shipment." 600 Land had argued that its proposed waste transfer station met this definition because: (1) it intended to store loads of waste temporarily prior to shipping them to their final destination; and (2) it would use the facility to park, store and service its trucks. The BZA pointed to the term "goods" in the first sentence of the defi- nition, and argued that the definition required the facility to transfer, load or unload "goods." The BZA argued that since waste did not con- stitute "goods,"600 Land's proposed facility did not meet the definition and therefore was not a permitted use. The court rejected the BZA's construction of the definition, and agreed with 600 Land that its proPQsed use met the definition, The court found . thatunde.r its plain and ordinary meaning, the term "loads" could in- clude waste. It also concluded that the term "load" ~as not limited by the preceding term "goods," as the BZA had argued. The court empha- sized that the words "good" and "loads" appeared in !)eparate sentences of thf; IZO. The court concluded therefore that "goods" was not a re- quired element of a "motor truck terminal," but merely described a way that trucks could be serviced at a motor truck terminal. . Finding that 600 Land's proposed transfer station would involve the parking, storing an:d servicing of collection trucks and the temporary storage of waste, the court concluded it was a permitted "motor truck terminal" use under the IZO. See also: Flying j., Inc. v. City of New Haven, Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 855 N.E.2d 1035 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006), transfer denied, 869 N.E.2d 456 (Ind. 2007). Case Note: The BZA had also argued that 600 Land's proposed use was a "salvage and storage" use that required a special exception. The court disagreed, finding that the proposed use did not fit the definition for that use. 8 @ 2008 Thomson ReuterslWest 102 /"', () H ij rl Jj 'I Ii ;; i ~ ,J ;j II q' ! 'I H Ii II li i i. ) i ! :i 'I 'I il Ii I