Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/02/1998

Home

Z.B. February 10, 1998 Page 5 needed for the provision of municipal water and sanitary facilities to the prop- erty. Because the property was tax exempt, its annexation would have a neutral effect on the tax base of both municipalities. The owner petitioned the governing bodies of the town and the city to have its property annexed by the city. Following joint hearings, the city's governing body passed a resolution approving the annexation. The town's governing body passed a resolution disapproving it. The owner asked a court to declare that the proposed annexation was in the overall public interest. The court appointed referees to consider the matter. The referees held hearings and issued a report finding that the annexation was in the overall public interest. The city asked the court to confirm the referees' report. DECISION: Report confirmed. The proposed annexation was in the public interest. The owner wanted to develop the vacant land in connection with adjacent land it already used for religious purposes. The property had to be annexed by the city so it could be provided with municipal water and sanitary facilities. Moreover, the proposed annexation would have no effect on the tax base of either municipality because the property was tax exempt. see also: Matter of Common Council of City of Norwich v. Town Board of Town of Norwich, 335 N.Y.S. 2d 714. Conditional Use Mining company battles for five years over permit for quarry Hoover lnc. v. Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals for Davidson Cou~zty, Tennessee, 955 & W. 2d 52 (Tennessee) 1997 Hoover Inc. had operated a quarry near the Nashville, Tenn., airport for many years, but was forced to stop operations when the airport expanded. It got an option to buy a parcel of land in Davidson County. Hoover applied to the city zoning appeals board for a conditional use per- mit, which it needed to operate a mine at a new location. After the board denied its application, Hoover got an option on a second parcel and applied for ano- ther conditional use permit. Hoover's second application was denied after a tumultuous public hearing, even though a majority of the participating board members said they believed Hoover's application met all permit requirements. Hoover appealed to court, and the court returned the matter to the board for a new hearing. It found that two board members who participated in the hearing should have been disqualified, and the board had not made proper factual findings to explain its decision. An appeals court vacated the trial court's deci- sion and ordered the trial court to reconsider Hoover's case on the merits. The trial court affirmed the board's denial of the permit. It found Hoover had not met the general requirement that the proposed use would not "adversely affect other property in the area." It also found the area wasn't likely to remain sparsely populated during the period quarrying was expected to last and that