Laserfiche WebLink
Page 8- November 10, 1998 <br /> <br />z.g. <br /> <br /> deleted the ordinance the company's application relied upon and considered <br /> alternative ordinances both allowing and denying the permit. <br /> The company sued the village four days before its contract to buy the prop- <br /> erty would expire. (By suing the village, it extended its right to buy the prop- <br /> erty.) The village council later denied the company's request, finding the <br /> terminal's access would be "adjacent" to a residential district. <br /> The company claimed the council violated the company's due process rights <br />by not approving its request even though it met the ordinance's only require- <br />ment -- that the terminal wouldn't be adjacent to a residential district. The <br />proposed terminal site was about 1,065 feet from the nearest residential area. <br /> The court awarded the village judgment, finding it didn't act arbitrarily. <br />The court specifically found the proposed terminal site could be "adjacent" to <br />a residential district, defining "adjacent" as "not distant or far off ... nearby but <br />not touching." <br /> The trucking company appealed, claiming both the village and the trial <br />court improperly found that the terminal could be adjacent to property that was <br />more than 1,000 feet away. <br /> .... <br />DECISION: Affirmed. <br /> The council didn't arbitrarily deny the company's request. After extensive <br />debates, the council denied the company's request after finding the proposed <br />site was too close to a residential district. The zoning ordinance allowed the <br />council to deny special authority for a truck terminal if the proposed location <br />was adjacent to a residential area. <br /> Neither the council nor the trial court improperly concluded the residential <br />district was adjacent to the proposed site. The court's definition of "adjacent" <br />was a reasonable one, as was its conclusion that the council had a rational basis <br />to find that access to the proposed terminal would "pass through or be adjacent <br />to a residential district." Adjacent was a relative term, and its meaning had to <br />be determined in connection with the manner in which it was used. <br />see also: Pearson v. City of Grand Blanc, 961 F.2d 1211 (1992). <br />see also: Cle velandMetrol)olitan'ParkDistrict, v. Sandler, 595 N. E.2d 950 (1991). <br /> <br />'-~,:}'~' tne~ ~any': s~e~m~- ~SSU~[~aaectmg:yo u~,.~umc~pamy~? tna,:you :woum <br /> <br />-?:.)':'.'.,~'.".~',"~tZe*~-""~.~· *;i~':"-'*/-;:; ~5,'.'~ 2e : ''- .... :.'"" "'-' '~;~7;;'~i~x' ':~*:" ', :,'~,'~-~'~"k'1~'~' · ."'-' ..... <br />nars;'conferenceg, or. otfier.~0rmatxon hat:n right be of interest tootherxeadz <br />ers" feel free ~o shar~' them,? .~ ~¢~:r~::. '::'~:: '~.?'~ ~'¢-'~:','~' ~-::~,~,-:~,~:;::::~,~ ~'~:-~?.:::~,~:-'~.':~:"~ <br />2q);~}.; send:'Ybh~'idea~:'~'~d'dbm~'~fii~"t6: Mi~h~ ¢I.-ifing;:Esqi~'Qfiifll'an PUblish5 <br />ing Com~any~.'?2}~ Drydock-'AV6.;. Bosto. n; ~ 02210:2387, fax (617)345, <br /> <br />:: 4:.' P18hsg indi6~td'Whether'we'can inClude Y6ur l~tfe~'.~"bfi? newsletter,, along <br />~ith;a'?e~fi~'}~ for re'~';hs~'f~6'~- ;th'er'hh'nic'i~'aii~'i~ i~'t'~'a~ h&¢; already <br /> <br /> <br />