Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/02/1998

Home

Page 8--May 25, 1998 Z.B. true agricultural uses involved producing crops, ornamental plants, dairy, live- stock and poultry. Although soil remediation was sometimes called "land farming," no products were grown or sold, and the tilling was related to a chemical process and not the production of crops or livestock. see also: Mize v. County of Mecklenburg, 341 S.E. 2d 767 (1986). see also: Moore v. Board of Adjustment, ;437 S.E. 2d 536 (1993). Variance-- Little League challenges conditions placed on outdoor lighting system Citation: Twin Town Little League Inc. v. Town of Poestenkill, Supreme Court o£New York, Appellate Division, Third Department, No. 81070 (1998) Twin Town Little Leagues had operated a Little League baseball complex in the town of Poestenkill, N.Y., for many years. The property was owned by a school district. In 1995, the league decided to install an outdoor artificial lighting system that would be mounted on four 60-foot poles. The school district consented to the lighting system provided the league got the town's permission. The league approached the town building inspector and its supervisor, who both said no approvals or permits were needed for the lighting system. The league installed the lighting system and used it for the entire 1996 season. In the fall of 1996, the building inspector informed the Little League that he had made a mistake and that the league needed an area variance because the town's zoning ordinance limited the poles to 35 feet in height. The league applied to the town zoning board for a variance, which the board granted conditioned on approval by the town planning board. The plan- ning board approved the league's plan with a number of conditions. The Little League appealed to court. It disagreed with three of the planning board's conditions: that there be no more than 20 nighttime baseball games per year, all between May 10 and July 7; that all operations cease by 9:30 p.m. or as soon as possible after the conclusion of a game, with all lights being turned off 30 minutes after a game ended; and that the Little League post appropriate signs. The court found the conditions the planning board imposed were appropri- ate, and the Little League appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. The conditions the planning board placed on the variance were appropriate. There was no question the board had the authority to attach conditions to its approval of the league's plan. The board's conditions were reasonable and aimed at minimizing any adverse impact the variance might cause. Neighbors were con- cerned their property values would be depreciated due to the noise and traffic associated with ballgames and the intrusiveness of the lighting. The board's condi- tions were a reasonable attempt to alleviate these concerns and therefore proper. see also: Board of Regents ~: Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 33 L.Ed.2d 548, 92 S. Ct. 2701.