Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/08/1999

Home

Z.B. October 10, 1999 -- Page 5 showed each lot would exceed the required square footage and that the pro- posed houses were compatible with the neighborhood. Nothing showed the proposed subdivision would have any adverse effects on the community. Regarding the variance, the zoning board had to weigh the benefit to Buckley against the detriment to the health and safety of the community. Buckley showed the frontage variance was minimal, the frontage on the neighboring lots was generally less than 70 feet, and the proposed use of the lots was in harmony with the surrounding neighborhood. Moreover, it appeared both boards' decisions were impermissibly based, at least in part, on the objections and concerns expressed at the hearings by Buckley's neighbors. Citation: Buckley v. Amityville Village Clerk, Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Div., 2nd Dept., No. 98-07392 (]999). see also: Sasso v. Osgood, 657 N. E. 2d 254. Waste Disposal -- County denies permission to increase capacity of waste transfer station MINNESOTA (9/14/99) --Waste Management Inc. ran a solid waste transfer station (at which waste from collection vehicles was concentrated for later trans- port) and a residential recycling center. The county issued Waste Management a conditional use permit in 1994 that allowed the company to transfer no more than 100 tons of waste per day. In 1998, Waste Management asked the county to modify its conditional use permit to increase the transfer limit from 100 tons per day to 287 tons per day. It had already been processing 150 tons of waste per day for several months due to a merger with another waste company. The capacity increase would increase traffic at the transfer station each hour by two additional trucks deliv- ering waste and one additional truck leaving. The county planning commission unanimously recommended approving Waste Management's request. The county board, however, rejected the commission's recommendation and denied Waste Management's request. The board's reasons were that the county wanted to increase its recycling program, Waste Management was already violating its current conditional use permit, there was enough capacity, and the county had expressed concern for the safety of the public. The board apparently relied in part on a letter from a tri-county waste office that had inspected the grounds and found Waste Man- agement didn't maintain a user-friendly layout for residential recycling. The letter said increasing traffic at the facility might "compound conflicts with com- mercial/industrial trucks and residential vehicles." The office had concluded the transfer station "[might] already be a dangerous, non-user friendly situa- tion for residents who wish to drop off recyclables." Waste Management appealed to court. It claimed the county's decision was arbitrary because it was based on unfounded and vague safety concerns.