Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/07/1998

Home

Z.B. March 10, 1998 Page 7 The town clerk filed a certified copy of Local Law 1 with the Secretary of State. The certified copy, however, didn't include the three amendments to the law. Under state law, a local law didn't become effective until it was filed with the Secretary of State. Preble Aggregate Inc. sued the town. It asked the court to find'that Local Law 1 was invalid and unenforceable because the law as adopted was never filed with the Secretary of State. The company admitted the town carefully followed its own enactment procedures when it adopted the law, including advertising the proposed law, providing a public comment period, and holding public hearings. It claimed, though, that the town clerk's clerical error in filing the law without the amendments caused it to be entirely invalid. The court denied the mining company's request, and the company appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. The court properly refused to find the new law invalid. Looking at the amendments revealed that the reference to an attached map and the effective date of the law were inconsequential. The text and map that were filed with the original proposal sufficiently showed mining was prohibited in that part of the town identified on the map and referred to in the text as Zone A. The failure to include the provision that exempted or grandfathered parties who already had permits before the effective date of the law was also irrelevant because, as of the date of the law, no one had a current permit to mine within the town. The mining company's arguments were "technical at best, and even at a technical level ... provide[d] no basis for invalidation of the local law." The town's failure to file the local law with amendments didn't frustrate the purpose behind the state municipal law, as the mining company argued. The purpose of the statute was to provide notice to the public that laws existed that might affect their individual and property rights. Here, the public had adequate notice of the adoption and contents of the new law. see also: Matter of Sterling Concerned Citizens v. Pell, 612 N.Y.S. 2d 425. Alscot Investing Corp. v. Laibach, 484 N.E. 2d 658. Conditional Use Permit City denies permit despite city officials' recommendations Kabatek v. City of North Royalton City Council, Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth Appellate District, Cuyahoga County, Docket No. 71942 (1998) Kabatek owned 19.5 acres of residentially zoned property in the city of North Royalton, Ohio. The property was encumbered by several oil and gas easements and was bordered by a steeply sloping ravine. In 1995, the city amended its zoning code by providing for single-family cluster development as a conditional use for residential property. Kabatek applied for a conditional use permit for a 37-unit, single-family cluster development. The city zoning code allowed the city council to issue conditional use permits, but not without considering the effect of the use upon neighboring