Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/02/2012

Home

also argued that under the state's Mined Land Reclamation Law, the Town's delay in reviewing its permit application necessarily resulted in the Town's relinquishment of its right to review the application. Troy moved for partial summary judgment. It asked the court to find that there were no material is- sues of fact in dispute and to decide the matter in its favor on the law alone. •-• Zoning Bulletin December 10, 2011 I Volume 51 No. 23 The Supreme Court denied Troy's motion. Troy appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York, held that the Town's failure to act on the application in a reasonable pe- riod of time did not render the application approved by default. Town laws did provide specific time periods in which the Town was re- quired to hold a hearing and decide on Troy's application for a special use permit. However, the court found that the laws did not provide for a default approval of a special use permit application in the event that the Town did not comply with those time periods. Rather, the court said that the proper remedy for the Town's alleged failure to act was for there to be a special pro- ceeding to compel the Town to issue a decision on Troy's application. The court also concluded that the Mined Land Reclamation Law did not require that the Town relinquish its right to review Troy's application because of the Town's delay in reviewing the application. While the Mined Land Reclamation Law supersedes all local laws and ordinances regulating mining and reclamation activities in New York, the law, found the court, "does not prevent local government from enacting local laws having the effect of banning mining, nor does it govern the manner in which decisions on special use permits must be made or the time within which those deci- sions must be made." See also: Gernatt Asphalt Products, Inc. v. Town of Sardinia, 87 N.Y.2d 668, 642 N.Y.S.2d 164, 664 N.E.2d 1226 (1996). See also: Tinker Street Cinema v. Town of Woodstock Planning Bd., 256 A.D.2d 970, 681 N.Y.S.2d 907 (3d Dep't 1998). Variance—Board Approves Mining Company's Use Variance Request to Mine in a Single- Family Residential Zone Neighboring property owners argue mining company failed to show "unnecessary hardship," as required for a variance Citation: Harrison v. Mayor and Board of Alderman of City of Batesville, 2011 WL 5222895 (Miss. 2011) MISSISSIPPI (11/03/11)—This case addressed the issue of whether a_ city erred in granting a variance to allow mining in an area zoned single- family residential and community business. In a matter of-first impression © 2011 Thomson Reuters 3