Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/02/1999

Home

Z~B. January 10, 1999 A Page 7 cate of compliance" showing it had any needed zoning permits. The planning commission refused to issue the certificate until the utility complied with county zoning regulations. .,~ The utility sued the planning commission: tt sought a. court order requiring the commission to issue the certificate. The utility also asked the court to de- clare that the .statute giving it the power to condemn land superseded local zoning regulations.. The utility a}gued it was a "quasi-state agency" 'because it was acting as an agent of the' state when it used its eminent domain powers to provide a public service. It claimed state agencies were exempt from local · The court ruled in the utility's favor. According to the court, it was neces- sary to make an initial.findingof public necessity to allow the private utility to use its condemnation powers. The court held that subjecting the' properly to further land use regulations would defeat the utility's: statutory, power~ The court ordered the planning commission to issue the certificate of co.mpt!- ance .... . '..; The planning commission appealed. . It argued th'& utility wasn't exempt from zoning regulations because"it.wasn't a branch· of state or local government. DECISION: Reversed. '.. .... . · The bourt shouldn't have ordered the commission to issue the certificate, because the utility's proposed substation didn't comply, with the coQ.nty's zoning regulations. '; .. ... The utility's condemnation powers didn't make it an agent of the state. The statute that gave the utility eminent domain powers didn't specifically exclude private companies.from zoning regulations, so they weren't exempt. ' · .The court shouldn't have ordered the planning commission to issue the certificate of compliance. The utility knew it needed a variance for:.the proposed substation, and the commission repeatedly explained how to apply for one. The utility, however, chose to circumvent that process by asking a court to order the commission to issue the certificate of appropriateness: The utility-couldn't show it was .unfairly impacted-by the zoning.ordinance because it refused to comply with zoning regulations lay seeking a.variance. The utility also failed to show it wa& unable to comply with current zoning \ restrictions. see also: Baldwin v. Appalachian Power Co., 556 F. 2d 241 (1977). Misconduct--Village refuses to hook up residents' water for;three months Citation: Olech v. Village of Willowbrook, 7th u.S. Circuit Cour't of Appeals, No. 98-2235 .(1998) The 7th Circuit has jurisdiction over Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin. The.Olechs, who lived in the village of Willowbrook, II1., used a well to get their water. When the well broke down, they asked the village to hook them up to the municipal water system.