Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/07/1996

Home

Z.B. April 1996 -- Page 5 lo2- necessary. As part of the 20 conditions the commission imposed on the approval, the university had to establish a 20-foot buffer as a visual screen and submit landscaping and tree-removal plans. Paige appealed to court, claiming the commission arbitrarily approved the application without considering harm to the property's natural resources and without considering alternative plans. The court dismissed Paige's appeal, find- ing trees and wildlife were not natural resources. Had the Legislature intended them to be, it would potentially require alternative plans for every subdivision application in the state. Paige appealed again. The appeals court affirmed, finding that to be a natu- ral resource, property had to have economic value (which included tourism and research). Since the subdivision property contained no endangered or rare trees or wildlife and served no productive use, the court found the trees and wildlife on it were not natural resources protected under the Act. Paige appealed the finding that trees and wildlife were not natural resources. He argued the court's narrow definition contradicted the federal Environmen- tal Protection Act, the state Environmental Protection Department and State Policy Act, and other state regulations. The university argued even if trees and wildlife were considered natural resources, the commission already did con- sider the subdivision's environmental impact, as evidenced in the conditions it imposed. DECISION: Reversed and returned to the trial court. Regardless of their economic value, trees and wildlife were natural resources protected under the Act. The commission had to consider any possible adverse impact the subdivision would have on them. The case was returned to the trial court to determine whether the commission did consider this, as well as any alternative plans. Just because the Legislature did not specifically list trees and wildlife in the Act and other environmental regulations, did not mean the Legislature intended to exclude them from other natural resources. Since the statute in question listed natural resources (like air) that had no traditional economic value, it had to be interpreted as including other resources (like trees and wildlife) that had no economic value. It was um:easonable for the trial court to fear that every subdivision appli~ cant would have to submit alternative plans if trees and wildlife were consid- ered natural resources. As the court noted, "we do not anticipate a sudden in- flux of citizen inte .rvenors in subdivision applications." Plus, alternative plans would be required only in situations where adverse environmental impacts were reasonably likely. Red Hill Coalition Inc. v. Town Plan & Zoning Commission, 563 A.2d 1347 (~989). Ray v. Mason County Drain Commissioner, 224 N. W. 2d 883 (1975).