Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/04/1999

Home

Page 6 -- March 25, 1999 Z.B. areas for businesses that, because of their intensity, outside storage areas, or hours of operation, would have significant negative impacts on adjoining proPerties. Ehler applied to the county board for a special use permit allowing it to build the auto center in the business district. The county zoning ordinance's special use guidelines required the board to give "particular emphasis ... to the evaluation of the characteristics of the proposed use in relationship to its im- mediate neighborhood and the compatibility of the proposed use with its neigh- borhood.'' The board also had to consider the policies and objectives of its comprehensive plan, as well as the effect on traffic, storm drainage, and land values. The board denied Ehler's request. It cited 12 reasons for its denial, includ- ing that.the tire store would be incompatible and inconsistent with the high- end office parks in the immediate neighborhood and the street's classification as a residential arterial. It also found the store could increase noise, odors, and visual blight.. Ehler sued the county. It sought a court order requiring the board to issue it a special use permit. The court overturned the board's decision and granted Ehler's request. '. The county appealed. DECISION: Reversed. The trial court shouldn't have ordered the county to issue Ehler a special use permit. The court was bound by the facts presented to the board, and should have overturned the board's decision only if there was no evidence to support the board's decision or the decision constituted an abuse of discretion. The county zoning ordinance required the board to give particular empha- sis to the proposed use's computability with the immediate neighborhood. Here, the board cited 12 reasons for denying Ehler a special permit, including that the proposed tire store would be incompatible and inconsistent with the high- end office parks in the area. tt also found the store could increase noise, odors, and visual blight. This was more than enough evidence to support the board's decision. see also: DeKalb County v. Dobson, 482 S.E. 2d 239 (1997). Variance -- Did board's less-than-majority vote result in variance denial? Citation: Jung v. Planning Board of the Town of Middletown, Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Div., 3rd Dept., No. 83103 (1999) Ballard owned property in the town of Middletown, N.Y. The property was in an R-5 zoning district that allowed for residential and limited agricultural use. Ballard wanted to build commercial storage buildings on his property. The town zoning ordinance allowed R-5 property to be developed, commercially with a Special use permit, provided the parcel was at least 5 acres and had 500