Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/04/2000

Home

Page 4 -- October 25, 1999 z.g. The lower court incorrectly reviewed the board's decision as a special per- mit. However, the case had to go back to the board to resolve some confusion about its decision. When faced with the Kokernaks' application for a special permit, the zon- ing board apparentlydetermined a special permit was unnecessary. The zoning bylaw gave property owners the fight to carry on certain small businesses on their premises without needing any special permit, so the board merely had to decide whether the Kokemaks use fit within the use allowed by the statute. The board granted a "favorable finding" to the Kokernaks, but its decision was not entirely clear. The board granted a certificate where none would have been necessary, and its decision discussed other uses requiring special permits and the possible detriment from such a use - which showed confusion on the board's part regarding the legal standard involved. The board had to determine if the Kokemaks' home business exceeded the permissible "external manifes- tations'' -- such as noise. Citation: Duteau v. Zoning Board of Apt~eals of Webster, Apt~eals Court of Massachusetts. No. 97-P-1979 (1999). see also: SCIT Inc. v. Planning Board of Braintree, 472 N.E. 2d 269 (1984). see also: Neuhaus v. Building Inspector of Marlborough, 4!5 N.E. 2d 235 (1981). Setback-- Disposal company and county fight over how to measure setback MINNESOTA (9/7/99) -- Superior-FRC Landfill Inc. ran a landfill in .Wright County. The county amended its zoning ordinance to restrict waste disposal to four districts. The southern boundary of Superior's property was also the bound- ary of a waste-handling district. The zoning ordinance prohibited landfills from being within 200 feet of a property line, defined as "the legal boundaries of a parcel or property which may also coincide with a right-of-way line of a road, cartway, and the like." Planning to expand its landfill all the way to the boundary, of the waste-han- dling district, Superior bought an adjacent parcel so the proposed expansion would be about 1,000 feet from its new. property line. The county told Superior its proposed expansion would violate the zoning ordinance. According to the county, the 200-foot requirement meant landfills had to be 200 feet from the boundary of the waste-handling district, not from the owner's property line. Superior appealed to the board of adjustment, which denied its appeal. Superior then appealed to court, arguing the county should have allowed it to expand its landfill, because with its newly acquired property, the expansion would be more than 200 feet from its new property line. The county claimed "property line" was synonymous with "lot line" so the lot line between.Superi0r's original land and its newly bought land was its property line. It also claimed that because a property line by definition could coincide with a right-of-way line, Superior's property line coincided with the