Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/04/2000

Home

z.g. October 25, 1999 -- Page 7 30,000 square feet, under the town zoning ordinance, the companies had to submit a site plan for the planning commission's approval. The companies applied for a building permit and submitted a site plan show- ing a private roadway along the site's northern property line connecting the plant to a town road. At the time, the town was constructing a public road along the site's southern border. Before getting a building permit or site plan approval, the companies be- gan building the plant and the private road. When town officials learned the companies had started building without permission, the building inspector is- sued a stop work order. When the site plan came before the commission, several officials objected to the companies' starting construction without approval. They also objected to the private roadway because of the present levels of traffic congestion on the connecting public road as well as the private road's location directly across from a residence. The planning commission eventually approved the site plan with several conditions. One condition was that the companies remove the private road as soon as the public road was built. After the town finished the public road, the companies continued to use the private road. They claimed their macks couldn't negotiate the steep grade of the public road during the winter months. The town board passed a resolution requiring the companies to remove the road within 30 days. Despite the resolution, the companies continued to use the road. The town then brought a zoning enforcement action against the companies. The town also sought a court order forcing the companies to stop using the road and to remove it. . At trial, the companies argued the town didn't have the authority to enforce its site plan denial because it couldn't' show noncompliance with a stated rule or regulation. The court agreed and granted judgment to the companies. On appeal, the town argued .its actibns fell within the broad powers granted to municipalities under state law to manage and control property and streets. The companies disagreed, arguing the town didn't have the statutory authority to require site plan approval in situations where the proposed use was a permit- ted use. DECISION: Reversed and returned to the lower court. The companies violated a proper permit condition, so the town was entitled to the requested court order. State law gave municipalities broad powers to manage and control prop~ erty and streets. The town enacted a clear zoning ordinance requiring site plan approval for buildings larger than 30,000 square feet. The ordinance also set traffic flow and access as clear priorities. The town's ordinance was clear and proper, and there was a reasonable and rational basis for the conditions placed on the site plan approval. The com- panies, therefore, had no choice but to comply with those conditions. Because