Laserfiche WebLink
<br />September 10, 20091 Volume 31 No. 17 <br /> <br />Zoning Bulletin <br /> <br />increase privacy. In other words, a setback is a "space and bulk require- ("J" <br />ment," while a buffer is required distance between commercial and resi- <br />dep.tial uses. Here, S 1.6 was a buffer. . <br />Because ~ 1.6 was a buffer, and ~ 1.7 allowed an alternative means of <br />complying with that buffer and meeting the buffer's purpose-without <br />reducing the level of screening, no variance was required. <br /> <br />See also: Conservation Law Foundation, Inc. v. Department Of Environ- <br />mental Protection, 2003 ME 62,823 A.2d 551 (Me. 2003). <br /> <br />See also: York v. Town of Ogunquit, 2001 ME 53, 769 A.2d 172 <br />(Me. 2001). <br /> <br />Case Note: The court went on to conclude that there was sufficient <br />evidence in the record before the Board to support the Board's findings <br />and ,decision to issue the lesser buffer permit and the business permit. <br /> <br />Standing-,-Landowner challenges county's <br />decisions to reduce hazardous waste corridor <br />and approve neighbor's request to store waste (ll <br /> <br />Since landowner sold its property, neighbor asserts it lacks <br />standing to bring action <br /> <br />Citation: Cedar Mountain Environmental, Inc. v. Tooele County, 2009 <br />WL 2341632 (Utah, July 31,2009) <br /> <br />UTAH (07/31/09)-Cedar Mountain Environmental, Inc. ("CME") <br />was a transporter of low-level radioactive waste. In 2003, CME applied <br />to the county for a temporary conditional use permit ("CUP") to allow <br />it to store low-level radioactive water on property it owned in the county <br />(the "Property"). County ordinance required that applicants seeking to <br />establish radioactive material disposal sites in the county had to obtain <br />a CUP and locate their disposal facilities within the county's hazardous <br />waste corridor. At the time of CME's application, all of CME's Property <br />was located in the county's hazardous waste corridor. <br />The county's Planning Commission (the "Commission") eventually <br />denied CME's CUP application. The denial was bas,ed on CME's "failure <br />to prove the need for another radioactive waste facility in [the county.]" <br />EnergySolutions, LLC already operated a radioactive waste disposal site <br />on the property adjoining CME's Property. l..;\ <br />In January 2005, CME granted a purchase option on: parcel B of its . <br />Property to Broken Arrow, Inc. CME then sold the remaining portion of <br />the Property to EnergySolutions. <br /> <br />6 <br /> <br />@ 2009 Thomson Reuters <br /> <br />64 <br />