Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/07/1999

Home

z.g0 July 25, 1999 -- Page 7 for "selective industries" whose activities didn't adversely impact the environment or the residents' quality of life. Heavy industrial uses were pro- hibited because of their potentially adverse and harmful impact. Even the uses specifically permitted by the zoning ordinance, none of which included the handling or processing of waste products, were subject to strict regulations and performance standards relating to noise, the discharge of tox- ins or noxious matter, and odor. The zoning ordinance contained a non-exclu- sive list of 29 prohibited uses that "did not meet the intended purpose" of the zone. It specifically prohibited the rendering or reduction of fats or any organic material, including garbage, and prohibited any other use that produced objec- tionable noise, dust, vibrations, noxious fumes, smoke, or odors. The town building department concluded Iza's proposal wasn't a permitted use. Iza appealed to the zoning appeals board, which affirmed the building department's decision after it found the delivery, transfer, and recycling of solid waste wasn't consistent with the purpose of the zone..The zoning board be- lieved the use fell within the meaning of the words "rendering and reduction" of organic materials. It also found the proposed use was more similar to pro- hibited activities than it was to permitted uses and concluded the project would violate the performance standards for air quality, odor, and noise that applied to permitted uses. Iza appealed to court. DECISION: Affirmed. The zoning board properly affirmed the building department's decision. The board's conclusion that Iza's proposal wasn't a permitted use was neither unreasonable nor irrational. Although it was unlikely Iza's proposal fell within the prohibition against uses that included the rendering or reduction of fats or other organic material, there was no question Iza's proposal didn't fall within any of the permitted uses in the district. The overall nature and anticipated impacts of Iza's proposal brought it far outside the realm of "selective industries" that wouldn't adversely impact the environment or the residents' quality of life. Moreover, it was likely,. the proposal would also fall under the general prohibition against uses that would produce objectionable noise, dust, vibrations, noxious fumes, or odors. Citatio~: lza Land Management Inc. v. Town of Clifton Park Zoni~g Board of Appeals, Supreme Cottrt of New York, Appellate Di~:, 3rd Dept., No. 83919 (1999). ~;~ see also: Red 11ouse Farm v. Zot~i~g Board of Appeals of the Tou,n of East Gree~bush, 650 N. YS. 2d 891. see also: KM0-361 RealO, Associates ~: Dm,ies, 611 N.Y.S. 2d 660. Conditional Use ~ Neighbors claim center failed to show group home would benefit neighborhood ,~. OHIO (3/25/99) -- St. Joseph's Treatment Center wanted to run a group home for teenage girls in a multifamily residential district in the city of Kettering. Group homes were a conditional use in the district.