Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/04/1995

Home

Z.B. March 1995 Page 3 The seininary appealed and asked the court to declare the ordinance uncon- stitutional It argued the ordinance violated due process because it restricted the size of ia functionally equivalent family, but not that of a traditional family. DECISIOI ~: Affirmed, in favor of the board. The or tinance's purpose was to preserve the character of the City's residen- tial nei'ghl00rhoods. It did not restrict the size of functionally equivalent groups. There was a rational relationship between the city's desire to preserve residential neighborh. >ods and the presumption that four or more people living together did not co~ [stitute a family. There ~,as no due process violation. The seminary could have applied for a variance a ad could have tried to rebut.the ordinance's Presumption. Baer ~ Town of Brookhaven, 540 N.Y.S.2d234. Landfill ~ Landowner Claims Right to Permit Vested Before Zoning Change Bankoff v. Board of Adjustment of Wagoner County, 875 P.~d 1138 .(Oklahoma) 1994. In 198~, Bankoff applied for a conditional use permit tO operate.a sanitary landfill o~ agriculturally zoned land in Wagoner County, Okla. The county Board of/[djustment denied the permit, and Bankoff appealed. The trial court found the board s decision was arbitrary, and reversed the decision. The court ordered the board to work with Bankoff to prepare a permit for the IanOfill. The permit had to include appropriate conditions for:operating a solid waste landfill under county zoning ordinances. The board appealed. While lhe appeal was pending, the county commissioners changed the zon- ing ordinance in such a way that Bankoff's request for a permit and subsequent appeals w~uld become moot if the amendment applied. Due t~ this change, the appeals court returned the case to the trial court to decide w~ether the new ordinance made the dispute moot. By that time, Bankoff's tenant had sued to challenge the amendment's validity. The trial court heard bot~ cases. The trhl court found Bankoff had notice of the amendment, but he already had a ves~ed right to his requested permit. This was because when Bankoff filed his a~0phcatlon, landfills were permitted uses in agricultural zones. At some poinlt, the state Department of Health had issued a permit authorizing the landfill, ad.d Bankoff's tenant spent a substantial amount ($800,000) setting up the landfil!. Therefore, the amendment could not apply to the permit request. The board appealed. DECISIO/q: Affirmed and returned to the trial court for further proceedings. Banko~f had a vested right to the conditional use permit, even though the landfill was not yet up and runmng. Usually a right to a permit becomes settled ~ . after a use!has.been estabhshed. However, to their disadvantage, Bankoffand its tenant ~elied on the ordinance's allowance of landfills. The only thing that preventedithe landfill from going into operation was the board's appeal -- when it fi~ed the appeal, the parties automatically had to maintain the status