Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/03/1998

Home

Page 6- January 25, 1998 ~ Z.B. Lerner applied to the town board for a special use permit. The board held a hearing, at which there apparently was evidence that the project would increase traffic in the area. Lerner, however, showed that on every day except Saturday the traffic generated by the project would be less than what would be generated by an as-of-right industrial building that could be built on the property. Lerner also showed that any traffic generated on a Saturday would not have an adverse impact on the area. .. The town board denied the permit, claiming the project would increase traffic congestion in the area. Lerner appealed to court. The court annulled the board's decision and or- dered it to grant Lerner a special use permit with reasonable conditions. The town appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. The board's denial of the special use permit wasn't supported by substantial evidence, so it was properly annulled. The board abused its discretion by'basing its denial on traffic concerns, because there was no evidence the proposed use would cause greater traffic than an as-of-right use. The board relied primarily on the purported increase in traffic congestion the project would cause, but the evidence showed that on · :.very day except Saturday the traffic would be less than what would be gener- ated by an as-of-right industrial building that could be built on the property. Moreover, Lerner proved that any traffic generated on Saturdays wouldn't adversely impact the area. The "Level of Service" at the intersections in the vicinity would not be lowered by the project, and the "Vehicle Capacity Ratio" would remain well below the level both parties agreed to be the level of oversaturation. see also: Matter of Serota v. Town Board of the ~rown of Oyster Bay, 595 N. Y.S. 2d 328. ConditiOnal Use -- Board denies permit for recovery house in residential district Recovery House VI v. City of Eugene, 946 P..2d 342 (Oregon) 1997 Recovery House VI ran a "recovery facility" in the city of Eugene, Ore. It housed 16 unrelated men who Were recovering from alcohol or drug dependency. Recovery House had operat.ed the facility in a residential district for about nine months. Recovery House believed its use was permitted in the zone, and needed no conditional use permit. The city, however, demanded that Recovery House apply for a conditional use permit to continue its operation. Recovery House applied for the permit, but argued it didn't need one. "Single-family dwellings" were a permitted use in the zone. They were defined as "a freestanding building designed or used for the occupancy of one family, with housekeeping facilities for only one family." (Emphasis added.) According to Recovery House, although the occupants of its facility were not members of