Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/07/1999

Home

Page 6 --July 25, 1999 Z.B. The planning commission recommended denying Clark's request. The city board overturned the commission's recommendation and rezoned Clark's property. The Davises appealed to court, claiming the city shouldn't have approved Clark's rezoning request because his application didn't include a development plan. The court determined the property, which contained a dilapidated house, hadn't been used for agricultural purposes for 12 to 15 years. The property was located at the intersection of two major highways, and..surrounding uses in- cluded K-Mart, WalMart, and other commercial uses on all three developed quadrants of the intersection. The intersection had complete turn lanes and traffic lights and was easily accessible from ali points in the county. The court affirmed the city board's decision to grant Clark's rezoning re- quest, finding the proposal satisfied the city's comprehensive plan. Regarding the adequacy of the development plan, the court found state law didn't require Clark to include such a plan. The court noted Clark had said he would provide detailed development plans at the time of development. The Davises appealed. DECISION: Reversed. The city board shouldn't have rezoned Clark's property. Clark's rezoning request didn't include a conceptual development plan, as required by the city zoning ordinance. State law didn't require a development plan because most counties in the state didn't have zoning regulations. Once a municipality chose to adopt planning and zoning regulations, though, it had to adhere to those regulations. The city's zoning ordinance required Clark to in- clude in his rezoning request a conceptual plan that included provisions for the location of buildings, intensity of use, and access by vehicles and pedestrians, among other things. Clark's application didn't include such a plan, so the city board should have accepted the planning commission's recommendation that the request be denied. Citatio~: Dm, is v. Board of Commissioners of the City of Da77ville, Court of ApI)eals of Ketztuck35 No. 1997-CA-OO2209-MR (1999). see also: Hardi~ Co~mty ~: ,lost, 897 S.W. 2d 592 (1995). see also: Bellefo~zte Lat~d v. Bellefo~te, 864 S. W. 2d 315 (]993). Waste Disposal -- Town says waste transfer facility wasn't appropriate for light industrial zone NEW YORK (6/10/99) -- 5[za Land Management Inc. sought permission to build a regional solid waste transfer facility in the town of Clifton Park. Up to 500 tons .of mixed solid waste would be trucked to the facility each day. The waste would be dropped on a tipping floor, compacted, containerized, and removed from the site by rail. The facility would include an operations and administration building, a structure for processing and transferring the waste, and a scalehouse. The property was zoned light industrial, which allowed light manufactur- ing, processing and fabrication facilities, wholesale warehouses and storage facilities, and research and development laboratories. The district was primarily