Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/05/1995

Home

Z.B. . June 15, 1995 -- Page 7 store, which was a commercial use; the six neighboring acres that lay in the office-institutional zone were designated as parking for the food store. After the departments approved the plat, it was sent to the county planning commission. The p~anning commission rejected the plat, finding that the intended use did not coimply with all the zoning ordinance's requirements. Publix~ sued the county, claiming its plans satisfied all ordinance require- ments and that it had a clear legal right to approval. The court ordered the county to ~pprove the plat. The co~unty appealed. DECISION: Reversed, in favor of the county. Publix~did not have a clear legal right to approval because the plat violated the county~'s zoning ordinance. Under the zoning ordinance,"accessory uses had to be in the same zone as the buildings they served. Therefore, Publix's parking facility had to be in the local-commercial zone if it was going to serve the food s~ore. Even though parking lots were allowed as a principal use in the office-indostrial zone, a variance or other exception was needed to have a com- mercial a~essory use in a noncommercial zone. Residentii~l Use -- Neighbor Tries to Shut Down Sawmill Operation Futer~s v. Shultis, 618 N.Y.S.2d 127 (New York) t994 Futerfas and Shultis were neighbors in a residential zone in the town of Woodstocl~, N.Y. They both had single-family homes on their properties. Shultis' property v~as 2.2 acres and had once been part of a 500-acre farm that was in Shultis' family for five generations. In 1987, Shultis and his uncle sold all but the 2.2 acres for lumber-cutting and milling operations. Their agreement with the new owner allowed Shultis to harvest wood from the sold property so he could cont{inue his small-scale lumber business. In May~ 1989, the town passed a new zoning ordinance that included non- conforming use provisions. In August 1989, Shultis bought a sawmill and put it on his pro _getty. This improved his wood-cutting ability and increased the amount of lumberihe stored from 2,000 feet to 4,000 or 5,000 feet. He also-stored r 3,000 feetlof logs on his property for sawing. Shultis bought a wood chipper and started storing and selling wood chips. Shulti~' sawing activity was visible only from Futerfas' driveway. There was no specific evidence that Shultis' business reduced the value of Futerfas' property. Also, there was conflicting evidence regarding the level and duration of the noise the mill created. Futerftis sued Shultis to stop him from operating the mill, claiming it vio- lated zoning. He also sought damages for the nuisance he c/aimed the mill created. The court granted Futerfas judgment without a trial, awarded him $1 in damageS, and ordered Shultis to stop operating the sawmill. Both p~trties appealed. DECISIOI~: Reversed and returned to the lower court.