Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Zoning Bulletin <br /> <br />regulations and state statutory law were not followed in adoption of the <br />amendment to the PUD. Plan. As such, the Instructions violated WLP's <br />due process rights. <br />The .court also found that the PUD Plan w~s unconstitutionally vague <br />as applied to WLP. A regulation was void.:fo~-vagueness if it forbid or <br />required "the doing of an act in terms so vague that [persons] of com- <br />mon intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its <br />application ...." The court found nothing in the PUD Plan or the town- <br />ship's actions put WLP on notice that commercial development outside <br />of three subareas would cause a corresponding decrease in the commer- <br />. cial. development permitted within those three f:;ubareas (as became the <br />case with the "floating cap" instituted by the Instructions). Furthermore, <br />there was nothing in the township's zoning regulations that gave a per- <br />son of common intelligence notice that a two-step ~ajor procedure for <br />major deviations from the PUD Plan would actually be applicable for <br />any commercial development application (as became.the case .per the In- <br />structions). Thus, the fact that the Instructions introduced those require-. <br />ments and were relied upon by the Zoning Inspector for her. denial of <br />WLP's application showed that the PUD Plan. was unconstitutionally <br />vague as applied to WLP. ' <br /> <br />See also: Nasierowski Bros. Inv. Co. v. City of Sterling Heights, 949 R2d <br />890 (6th Cir. 1991). , <br /> <br />See also: Smith v. Goguen, 415 U.S. 566, 94 S. Ct. 1242, 39 1. Ed. 2d <br />605 (1974). <br /> <br />(~'\ <br />t ) <br /> <br />Case Note: The court haq found that the Instructions were adminis- <br />. trative in nature, as opposed to legislative, and therefore were sub- <br />ject toprocedutal due process requirements. . <br /> <br />Nonconforming Use-Landowner seeks to quarry <br />its property as a lawful. nonconforming use <br /> <br />It asks court to declare that un-quarried portion of property' <br />wa~ entitled to nonconforming use status <br /> <br />Citation: Buffalo Crushed Stone, Inc. v. Town of Cheektowaga, 2008 <br />WL 4447594 (N. Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2008) <br /> <br />NEW YOf RKI (10/03/08)-thBuffalo C1rushed Stdoneh, Indc. (BkCSI) owned (~ <br />280 acres 0 rea property 1D. e town. t operate a ar roc quarry on <br />one half of that property. The quarry began operations in 1929. <br /> <br />10 <br /> <br />@ 2008 Thomson Reuters/West <br /> <br />72 <br /> <br />.... <br />) <br />! <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br />