Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/07/1995

Home

· Z.B. January 15, 1995 Page 5 plant's site wa~ in a commercial forestry zone; the other part was in an exclu- sive farm use zone. Zippel and 9ther neighbors feared increased noise and traffic at the site, so they appealed the decision to the Land Use Board of Appeals. The neighbbrs argued that the county incorrectly interpreted the zoning ordinance, which stated no asphalt batching plant "shall operate for a period greater than 18~ days at a single site." The county said this meant that the plant could operate in. continuous 180-day cycles, as long as there was a 90-day break between each aycle of operation. Thd neighbors claimed the 180-day period was absolute, ~nd did not allow any further operations after 180 days. They said the county!'s interpretation was dontrary to the ordinance's express lan- guage, so it had~ to be reversed. The board a~irmed the county's interpretation, but returned the case to the county to decide whether the asphalf company could use a private road for access to the sitk. Zippel appealed the board's decision to affirm the conditional use permit. The asphalt plant owner appealed the board's decision to return the access road issue to th~ county. DECISION: Affirmed. Both of the board's decisions were correct. The board c~. rrectly upheld the county's issuance of the permit. The county gave reasons for!its interpretation. Unless the neighbors could show the county's ordinance interl~retation was clearly wrong, the decision had to be affirmed. The ordinance did not say whether asphalt batching operations at a site could be done in one ~80-day period or many. Although the 90-day breaks may not have been as long. as the ordinance inten'ded, Zippel did not prove this interpreta- tion was wrong,i The board al'so correctly sent the Case back to the county for a determina- tion regarding t§e access road. The question dealt with ordinance interPreta- tion, which was ~ county function. Weeks v. City of Tillamook, 844 P. 2d 914 (1992). Special ExceptiPn -- Community Pressures Zoning Board to Deny Permit Renewal for Caibaret C.B.H. Properties Inc. v. Rose, 613 N.Y.S. 2d 913 (New York) 1994 C.B.H. Prop.erties Inc. (CBH) had a special permit to own and operate a cabaret nightclu¢ in the town of Hempstead, N.Y. When CBH ~jied to renew its permit, the town's Board of Zoning Appeals rejected the appl!cation. The board al}o refused to renew an off-street parking variance that acqompanied the special permit. CBH appealed, arguing it met the requirements for a permit, and the board's decision was ba~ed on wrong information about noise and traffic in the neigh- borhood. The cEbaret was across from a town-owned parking field used by patrons of various[ establishments. CBH claimed there was not enough evidence to III