Laserfiche WebLink
<br />October 10, 2009 I Volu{me 3 I No. 19 <br /> <br />Zoning Bulletin <br /> <br />welfare, regardless of a COAH certification, so as to constitute a special (-j <br />reason to satisfy the positive criteria [needed for a use variance]." <br />The court remanded the matter to the Board "for consideration of <br />Homes of Hope's variance application in light of its inherently beneficial <br />use status." <br /> <br />See also: DeSimone v. Greater Englewood Housing Corporation No.1, <br />56 N.]. 428, 267 A.2d 31 (1970).. <br /> <br />See also: Kunzler v. Hoffman, 48 N.]. 277, 225 A.2d 321 (1966). <br /> <br />Case Note:. In its decision, the court explained that boards, in deter- <br />mining whether to issue a variance for an inherently beneficial use, <br />had to "weigh the positive and negative criteria and determine wheth- <br />er, on balance, the grant of the variance would cause a substantial <br />detriment to the public' good." So while it is more difficult for mu- <br />nicipalities to exclude inherently beneficial uses, they can exclude them <br />"where the detriment outweighs the benefit to the public good." <br /> <br />Due Process-While serving as county <br />commissioner, zoning board mery-lber had been (~) <br />involved in dispute between applicant and <br />abutters <br /> <br />Abutters claim board member had disqualifying interest and <br />they did not receive due process <br /> <br />Citatiqn: Armstrong v. Turner County Board of Adjustment, 2009 WL <br />2707767 (S.D., Aug. 26, 2009) <br /> <br />SOUlH DAKOTA (08/26/09)-Viborg Cooperative Elevator Associa- <br />tion ("VCEA") owned property (the "Property") in the county. The Prop- <br />erty was zoned agricultural and abutted an area zoned residential. Rose- <br />mary Armstrong and Alphie Petersen (the "Abutters") owned single-family <br />residences on the abutting residentially-zoned property. <br />In 2006, VCEA sought to construct a commercial grain storage fa- <br />cility on the Property. Under the county's zoning ordinance, VCEA was <br />required to obtain from the county's board of adjustment (the "Board") <br />a conditional use permit ("CUP") for the grain storage facility. However, <br />instead of applying for a CUP, VCEA applied to the county zoning ad- <br />ministrator for a building permit. By mistake, the zoning administrator <br />issued VCEA a building permit. Twelve days later she realized her mis- <br />take and informed VCEA that it needed a CUP. VCEA claimed that in <br /> <br />10 <br /> <br />@ 2009 Thomson Reuters <br /> <br />\..J I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />_ _1 <br /> <br />92 <br />