Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/05/1999

Home

Page 6 -- September 10, 1999 Z.B. on the property. According to the citation, Teefey was operating a sanitary landfill in an agricultural district, which prohibited such uses. Teefey appealed to the zoning appeals board. The zoning ordinance defined "sanitary landfill" as "an area used to dis- pose of solid waste" and defined "solid waste" as garbage, refuse, or other discarded materials resulting from industrial, commercial, agricultural, and domestic activities. A "solid waste processing facility" was any facility where solid wastes were processed, including a compost facility -- which in turn was defined as a facility that processed grass, leaves, brush, and other organic wastes from more than one house or business. According to the board, because the definition of solid waste processing facility included a yard waste compost facility, the yard waste Teefey was dump- ing on his property had to be considered solid waste. The board upheld the department's decision, and Teefey appealed to court. He claimed "yard waste" was different from "solid waste" because state law differentiated between the two and prohibited dumping yard waste in solid waste disposal areas. He said if the ordinance considered them one and the same, it was void because it conflicted with state law. The court determined there wasn't enough evidence to support the zoning board's finding that Teefey was operating a sanitary landfill in an agricultural district. The court ordered the board to hold another hearing on the issue. At the hearing, Teefey testified that grass clippings, leaves, twigs, and small shrubs were deposited in a compost pile on the property for recycling. The waste was produced from the property itself and was also brought onto the property from residential or commercial customers' properties. Teefey admit- ted he didn't haul the waste from his customers' properties to a dump, but instead dumped it. on his own property to avoid dumping fees. The board again upheld the department's finding that Teefey was operating a sanitary landfill on his property in violation of the zoning ordinance. Teefey appealed, and the court again found the evidence didn't support the board's decision. The court found that the department presented "little, if any evidence" that Teefey operated a sanitary landfill on his property. The board appealed again. DECISION: Reversed. The zoning board properly upheld the zoning violation. Teefey was ille- gally operating a sanitary landfill in an agricultural district. By definition, both a sanitary landfill and a solid waste processing facility involved solid waste disposal. Because the definition of a solid waste process- ing facility included a yard waste compost facility, yard waste such. as grass, leaves, and brush had to be considered solid waste under the ordinance. Whether yard waste was disposed of in a sanitary landfill or processed in a solid waste processing facility, the zoning ordinance limited such uses to specific districts -- and prohibited them in agricultural districts. The evidence clearly showed, and Teefey admitted, that the grass, leaves, and other organic materials he