Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/06/1996

Home

Lebanon, N.Y. The company ran the Lebanon Valley Speedway on the prop- erty. It applied for a zoning permit to replace its tower-control building, build a return road for race cars, build a maintenance/sto.rage shed, and .pave the - race-preparation area: It also applied for a permit to build new, 1,000-seat bleachers. The town's code-enforcement officer denigd the first permit, but approved the one for the bleachers. The company appealed the permit denial to the town's Zoning Board of Appeals. After a hearing, the board found th'e company's request might increase use of the speedway, and told the company it needed a special permit. The company applied for one, and the board considered it at a second hearing. The board reviewed the application under the State 'Environmental Quality Review Act, and issued a negative declarati~)n of gnvironmental significance. After a third hearing, the board issued the special permit. The lsoard recog- nized that noise was a big concern, but said the speedway already had been creating noise for more than 30 years. Concerned Residents of New Lebanon, an association of town residents and landowners, asked a court to annul'the special permit. The company asked the court to dismiss the case because the construction already was sub- stantially completed. The court dismissed the association's case. Later (seven months after the original permit was issued), the company asked the board to modify.the permit so it ~uld add parking areas, build a footbridge over a road, and put 'in 4,000-seat bleachers. The association asked the court to let 'it renew irs case, saying the company's request stab'ted a second phase of construction. It said be.cause of the new phase, it should be allowed to sue on the basis that the construction could not be substantially complete. The court denied the association's request. The association appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. The lower court properly dismissed the association's case. The associa- tion did not dispute that, when it first sued, the initial construction the special permit authorized was substantially complete. The lower court properly denied the association's request to renew its case. The court could not review information the board did not consider when it originally granted the permit. The lawsuit .had to do with only the initial application. Even if the court could revi. ew the board's decision, the decision would have been upheld. The board had held public heari'ngs and considered effects on land, water, transportation, community growth, noise levels and traffic. It made detailed written findings, from which there was no reason to believe noise levels would be worse. Matter of Montalbano v. Silva, 6.ll N. XS, 2d 630. Matter of Citizens Accord v. Town Board of Town of Rochester, 596 N. Y.S. 2d