Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/03/1995

Home

Page 4 -- September 1995 Z.B. *" DECISION: Affirmed. The lower court properly dismissed the case. Without the signature of a "beneficially interested" party, the superior court lacked authority to resolve the dispute. Strict compliance with procedural requirements 'like the need for a signature was necessary to ensure the finality of land use decisions. Compel- ling the Griffiths to fulfill all statutory requirements was not unduly oppressive. Sterling v. County of Sl2okane, 642 P.2d 1255 (1982). Limitations Period-- Concrete Plant Too Long to Challenge Permit Conditions Hunt Brothers Contractors Inc. v. Glennon, 625N. ZX2d 319 (New York)1995 Hunt Brothers Contractors Inc. owned and operated a concrete batching plant with an associated rock' crushing operation in the town of Wells, N.Y. The Adirondack Park Agency (APA) was a state agenCy responsible for enforcing the Adirondack Park Agency Act. The agency believed Hunt Brothers' operations violated the Act because the company did not have the required APA permit. In August 1989, the agency sent Hunt Brothers a "notice of apparent violation." Soon after, Hunt Brothers agreed to get the required permit. On Oct. 21, 1992, the agency issued Hunt Brothers a permit allowing it to expand its plant and its rock crushing operation, subject to several conditions. On Nov. 19, Hunt Brothers asked the agency to.reconsider the permit, arguing that the agency had no jurisdiction over its operations. On March 15, 1993, the agency denied the request for reconsideration and told the company that the agency's appeal process was not available to it. On May 7, .1993, Hunt Brothers challenged the permit and asked the court to declare that the agency had no jurisdiction over the company's operaiions. The. agency asked the court to dismiss the case, claiming Hunt Brothers waited too long to sue. (A law provided that parties had 60 days from the date of an agency order to challenge it in court.) In July. 1993, the agency reissued the permit with minor changes regarding hours of operation and reporting requirements. The court dismissed the case because Hunt Brothers filed it more than 60 days after the agency issued the permit. On appeal, Hunt Brothers argued that the 60~day period had been suspended by ~ts Nov. 19 application for reconsid- eration. It also claimed the agency's July 1993 reissuance of the permit showed that the October permit was not a final decision. DECISION: Affirmed with a modification. The lower court properly dismissed all but one claim (regarding the fair- ness of the agency's appeals process). The dismissed claims arose when the ragency issued the permit on Oct. 21, 1992. Because the agency had discretion whether or not to reconsider its October action, Hunt Brothers' request for reconsideration did not suspend the 60-day period. The July permit's minor