Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/06/2003

Home

Page 6 -- September 25, 2003 results of purely take-home adult entertainment stores. Further, the store was in a rural, not metropolitan, area. Since the township did not supp{ement the record with additional evidence to suppor~ its position, there remained genuine issues of fact as to the applica- bility and validity of the studies presented as evidence. The township's request for judgment was denied. Citation: DiA/la Corp. v. High Forest Township, U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, No. 02-3800 (DWF/SRN) (2003). see also: Cice of Renron v. Playtime Theaters Inc., 475 U.S. 4J (1986). see also: ILQ Investments Inc. v. City of Rochester, 25 F. 3d 1413 (1994). 112 Conflict of Laws -- State and county agree to let school endowment land become landfill Disagree on types of permits required IDAHO (7/23/03) -- The Idaho State Land Board managed and controlled school endowment land located in Blaine County. The board and the county entered into an agreement allowing the county to operate a landfill on the sub- ject property. The agreement also allowed the county to sell excess fill for the payment of royalties and, at various times, allowed third parties to conduct sand and gravel extraction operations there. Ln 1998 and 1999, McStay conducted a sand and gravel operation on the property, pursuant to a lease with the state. In September 1999, the county served McStay wi[h a cease-and-desist order to stop further extraction and removal of sand and ~avel from the property. McStay was advised these operations vio- lated the local zoning laws. McStay was also advised he could not resume. these operations unless he acquired a conditional use perrmt. The state became involved in this'controversy and asked the county to re- move zoning overlays ~t¥om the endowment lands within the county. The stare also advised the county [hat it was acting beyond its legal authority in requir- ing a conditional use perrait in this matter. McStay applied for and was denied a conditional use permit. The planning and zoning commission reasoned gravel extractions on the property were not consistent with the objectives of the comprehensive plan. McStay appealed the decision, but the board of county commissioners affirmed. The state then sued, asking for a declaratory order to determine if endow- ment trust lands were subject to or immune from local zoning laws. The lower court found school endowment lands were subject to local zon~ ina laws. The state appealed, contending the application of zoning laws to endowment trust was constitutionally and stamtolSly prohibited. The county responded by arguing that the statute did not specifically exempt the [and board t¥om the application of local zoning laws. DECISION': Reversed. The school endowment [ands were exempt from local zoning.