Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/04/2000

Home

z0g. October 25, 1999 -- Page 5 boundary of the waste-handling district. The county claimed Superior's expan- sion would eliminate the 200-foot buffer mandated by the zoning ordinance. The court ruled in Superior's favor, and the county appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. Superior could expand its landfill up to the boundary of the waste-disposal district. By purchasing the adjacent lot, Superior brought the expansion into conformity with the zoning ordinance. The lot line between Superior's old and new parcels wasn't a "property line" as defined by the zoning ordinance, so the 200-foot buffer had to be mea- sured from the property line of Superior's new lot. A "lot" was a portion of land in a subdivision that was separated from other parcels or portions. Lots were defined without reference to ownership, and a single owner's "property" could consist of part of a single lot or several lots. Because a property line could coincide with a right-of-way didn't mean Superior's property line had to coincide with the waste-handling district boundary. The ordinance prohibited landfills within 200 feet of a property line, not within 200 feet of a waste-handling district line, so Superior's expansion wouldn't eliminate the 200-foot buffer. The county could have drafted an ordi- nance that prohibited landfills within 200 feet of a district line but chose not to, so it couldn't interpret the ordinance it drafted to mean something other than what it said. Citation: Superior-FRC Landfill Inc. y. Wright County, Court of Appeals of Minnesota, No. C3-99-507 (1999). see also: Frank's Nursery Sales Inc. v. City of Roseville, 295 N. W. 2d 604 (1980). see also: SLS Partnership v. City of Apple Valley, 511 N.W. 2d 738 (1994). Notice -- Owners and city spar over validity of zoning ordinance OHIO (9/30/99) -- The Donsantes and the Fosters (owners) lived in the city of Wickliffe. Because of the layout of their properties, neither family could park its motor home in its side or back yard. To comply with city parking and zon- ing ordinances, they built cement parking areas in front of their homes to ac- commodate their motor homes. In 1993, the city amended its parking regulations to prohibit the parking of motor homes, house vehicles, boats, 6r boat trailers in front yards between 9 p.m. and 6 a.m. The city cited the owners numerous times for parking their motor homes in their front yar~ls. A municipal court later dismissed the cita- tions, finding the city didn't follow proper procedures when it amended the parking regulations. A few months later, the city passed an almost identical ordinance. The owners challenged that ordinance as well, claiming it violated the city charter because the city didn't hold a public hearing or refer the ordinance to the plan- ning commission. The court found the ordinance was invalid. In 1996, the city submitted a third ordinance to the planning commission.