Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/05/1995

Home

Z.B. August 1995 Page 7 different activities. Farmers had to till the soil and fertilize land, while fish farmers had to enrich bodies of water to encourage fish spawning. The portion of the Ordinance dealing with the cultivation of agricultural crops did not apply to Romeo's situation. However, the ordinance did specifically' state that people could maintain nonresidential buildings used "solely in conjunction with raising ... aquatic animals." Therefore, Romeo could raise and spawn fish in her building. County of Adams v. Romeo, 510 N.W. 2d 693 (1993). Ordinance, Religious Organization Challenges Nonresidential "Buffer Zone" Wellspring Zendo Inc. v. Trippe, 625 N.Y.S.2d 334 (New York) 1995 Wellspring Zendo Inc. was a nonprofit religious corporation that owned about 25 acres in a residential district in the town of Pound Ridge, N.Y. The town planned to create ~.50-foot buffer zone around properties in the district that were devoted to permitted nonresidential uses. Wellspring sued in federal court to stop the town from doing this, claiming civil rights violations. The lawsuitlwas settled with an agreement that Wellspring's right to challenge the proposad buffer in state court was "restricted to seeking only declaratory relief as the same may deal with a 50 foot buffer ... enacted pursuant to this Stipula- tion and~ Settlement." After the parties settled, the town board amended the zoning ordinance to create a 50-foot buffer "screening area" around the perimeter boundaries of nonresidential properties. Such landowners had to preserve vegetation within the buffer in its existing state unless the town planning board approved a land- scape plan. However, ordinary maintenance (including fertilization, removal of dead:vegetation, and planting of seasonal vegetation) was still allowed in the buffer. Wellspring was the only nonresidential landowner in the zone that had not already fully landscaped its property, so it sued the town to contest the buffer zone's Size. Wellspring asked the court to declare the zoning amendment un- constitational, arguing that the buffer zone interfered with a religious "work practice" in which its members engaged. The work practice involved silent meditat!on while doing property maintenance. The town claimed the parties' settlement limited Wellspring's challenge to the size of the buffer. It pointed out that~in a public hearing, Wellspring's representatives said Wellspring did not oppose any possible buffer, only the size of the 50-foot buffer. Thecourt dismissed the case, finding the buffer requirement was reasona- bly related to the town's health, safety, and welfare. Wellspring appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. The'lower court properly dismissed Wellspring's case. Wellspring, through its statements, waived its right to challenge anything but the size of the buffer. Its constitutional challenge failed because it produced