Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/06/1996

Home

Page 4 --;December 15, 1995 Z.B. DECISIOn: Affirmed. The lower court properly dismissed the association's case. The board's decision W. as supported by substantial evidence and was not arbitrary. It held an extens~t,e public hearing and considered both sides of the issue. Its finding was based in part on the strict regulations and restrictions with which the shelter wguld have to comply. The shelter was far more regulated than a normal tWp-family house, and was even more restricted than the uses that conformed with the area's zoning. Matte8 of Budget Estates v. Roth, 610 N.Y.S. 2d 69. Environmental Issues -- Can Village Resident Challenge Environmental Board's Decision? In re Gabot Creamery Cooperative Inc., 663 A.2d 940 (VermonO 1995 In 1986, Cabot Creamery Cooperative Inc. got a state land use permit for its propert~ in the village of Cabot, Vt. Under the permit, it had to build a waste treatment facility. In 199}2, administrative hearings were held regarding Cabot's permit. Scheiber, a village resident, was allowed to participate in the hearings even though his! land did not adjoin Cabot's. The District 5 Environmental Com- [ mission re{,ised Cabot's land use permit so it could dispose of dairy process- ing wasteWater on land in several towns. This meant Cabot did not have to build the ~aste treatment facility required by its original permit. Scheib.,~r appealed to the Environmental Board. In August 1993, the board affirmed tile commission's decision. Scheiber asked the board to reconsider, claiming dabot did not show a change in regulatory circumstances that would justify an ~mendment of its permit. The board denied Scheiber's request. It found thatlthe state's Agency of Natural Resources first believed the treat- ment plantiwas needed to meet state regulations, but then concluded a "prop- erly administered land application program" was preferable. In Novkmber 1993, Scheiber again asked the board to reconsider. This time, he said the board failed to consider whether the change in circumstances that supported the amendment was beyond Cabot's control. The board found Scheiber d{d not file his request on time and said its first decision was correct. Scheib~r asked a court to review the board's decision. The court dismissed Scheiber's Oase because hd failed to serve the board with a copy of the complaint.' Scheib~.r appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. The coOrt properly dismissed Scheiber's case, but it should have done so because it [Sad no jurisdiction. Although Scheiber was allowed to participate in the administrative hear- ings, the stgte statute under which the land use permit was issued limited the parties tha{ could appeal Environmental Board decisions. The statute said "only the ~pplicant, a state agency, the regional and municipal planning