Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/08/1999

Home

Page 6 -- October 10, 1999 Z.B. DECISION: Affirmed. The board properly denied Waste Management's request based on public safety concerns. The board relied on evidence indicating the tri-county waste office was "concerned and disFleased" about the proposed modification based on the first- hand observations of its director, who concluded there were already safety is- sues and the danger would likely increase if the permit were modified. There was evidence the facility might already be dangerous for residents who were dropping off recyclables, and Waste Management was seeking to increase in- dustrial traffic at the transfer station while the county was seeking to increase its recycling program. Citation: Waste Management Inc. v. Le Sueur County, Court of Appeals of Minnesota, No. C9-99-432 (1999). see also: Molnar v. County of Carver Board of Commissioners, 568 N.W. 2d 177 (1994). Variance -- Owners claim variance condition was 'personal' and didn't attach to property CONNECTICUT (8/24/99) ~ The Gangemis owned a seasonal house. In 1986, they applied for a variance from the town's setback requirements so they could enlarge their already nonconforming house and convert it from summer to year- round use. They said they needed to enclose the porch, enlarge the bathroom, and build a furnace room. Their application stated they would use the property "for family use only on a year round basis." The zoning board granted the Gangemis a variance on the condition that they limited the house to family use -- they weren't allowed to rent it. The Gangemis never challenged the condition. Four years later, the Gangemis moved out and began renting the house. In 1996, the zoning officer ordered the Gangemis to get rid of their tenants because renting the house violated the board's conditional approval of their variance. The Gangemis asked the zoning board to invalidate the no-rental condition and reverse the zoning officer's order. The board denied their request. Accord- ing to the board, it didn't attach the condition, it only approved the variance as the Gangemis requested it. The board said it would be absurd to let the Gangemis say they didn't mean what they said when they applied for the variance or that they had changed their minds. The board said the condition was appropriate because the house was in a beach area and the condition protected the unique- ness of the area, promoted the public health, and preserved property values. The Gangemis appealed to court. They claimed the no-rental condition was void because it was personal to them; variance conditions had to attach to land, not owners. They argued the only reasonable interpretation of their variance request, which stated that the "owners intended to use the property for family