Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/07/1999

Home

z.go July 10, 1999 -- Page 3 the DNR's project had to comply with the township's zoning regulations. The Legislature gave townships extensive authority to regulate the use and development of land within their borders, including waterfront property. The DNR failed to show a clear legislative intent to exempt its construction of a boat ramp from the township's zoning ordinance. The Legislature appeared to have given townships and the DNR coexten- sive rights to protect natural resources in general and to develop recreation facilities and other waterfront developments in particular. Although the Legis- lature gave the DNR the power to build and maintain recreational facilities on public land, this didn't mean the DNR could do so in violation of local zoning ordinances. That the DNR fell under a comprehensive regulatory scheme didn't mean it had exclusive jurisdiction whenever it acted -- particularly in light of the township's rival comprehensive zoning powers. Moreover, the statute giving townships their zoning authority specifically exempted from local regulation oil or gas wells and state licensed residential facilities. This showed the Legislature was aware of overriding land use issues that warranted specific exemption from local regulation -- but the Legislature provided no such exemption for the DNR's activities. Township of Burt v. State of Michigan, Department of Natural Resources, Supreme Court of Michigan, No. 111334 (1999). see also: Dearden v. Detroit, 269 N.W. 2d 139 (1978). see also: Addison Township v. Department of State Police, 560 N. W.2d 67 (1996). Excavation -- Did board arbitrarily deny special permit for gravel mine? NEW YORK (6/10/99) . Rifenburg Construction Inc. wanted to mine gravel in the town of East Greenbush. The property was zoned agriculture-residence, which allowed gravel mining with a special use permit. In 1992, Rifenburg applied to the zoning board for a permit. To be entitled to a special use permit, Rifenburg had to show the mine would be "in harmony*' with the orderly development of the zoning district." It also had to show the proposed mine wouldn't impair property values. After four years of litigation and four separate court decisions, the zoning board held a public hearing to consider the application. At the hearing, a local real estate expert testified the proposed mine would "markedly diminish" prop- erty values in the area. In addition, an engineering firm presented a traffic study stating the pro- posed mine's truck traffic would "compromise public safety." According to the study, the road accommodated mostly residential traffic, including school buses, and the increase in traffic created by large gravel trucks posed a danger because of poor sight distances a[bng the road and because motorists tended to speed on that road. The study also questioned whether a local bridge and the road's subsurface pavement could handle the weight of gravel-bearing trucks. The board denied Rifenburg's per.mit application. It found the company