Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/02/2003

Home

Z.g. December i0, 2002 --Page 5 by commencing an action seeking a declaratory judgment providing that the county was required to seek approval prior t° starting construction. The' state supreme court dismissed that complaint and issued a declaration that the project was not subject to the town's zoning ordinance. The town appealed. DECISION: Appeal dismissed. The project wasntt subject to the toWn's zoning ordinance. The construction project had already been completed, and a certificate of occupancy had been issued. Further, county employees already occupied, the' building. The town failed'to seek injunctive: relief or a stay'pending the appeal. Thus, the town's claim was.moot. Citation: Town of Caroline v. County of Tompkins,: Supreme Court of New-! York, App. Div., 3rd Dept., No. 91611 (2002). see also: Matter of Gorman v. Town Board of Town of East Hampton, 709 N. KS. 2d 433. Settlement M Owner and town settle lawsuit Owner objects to settlement agreement OHIO (10/24/02) -- Roberts operated a business that illegally disposed of ' solid and construction waste materials and debris on property zoned rural resi- dential. Thorn Township filed a complaint on May'8, 2001, attempting to en- join these illegal activities. A trial was scheduled for Jan. 9, 2002, but the.parties reached a settlement agreement, which was made.part o.f the record. The agreement provided that Roberts would consent to the court's ilmposition of a permanent injunction prohibiting further violations of the environment and zoning ordinances. The agreemen, t also set out a timetable for bringing the business into compliance and allowed Roberts to continue operation. On Jan. 18, 2002, the township sent Roberts a proposed consent order. The township submitted the. proposed consent order and permanent injunction on Jan. 28, 2002, and the trial court signed and filed on the same day. Roberts filed a motion to vacate the consent order and inj.unction on Feb: 4, 2002, claiming the court and township engaged in ex parte c°mmunications. The court denied the motion; and Roberts appealed, .claiming he was 'de- hied a hearing. DECISION~ Consent. order and permanent injunction vacated. Roberts was improperly denied a hearing. Roberts failed to timely respond within five days of receiving the'proposal on. Jan. 9. However, when the township later submitted another proposal, the five-day period during, which Roberts could appeal began anew~ The court noted the statute did not entitle Roberts to a hearing, but he could submit a memorandi~m detailing the reasons for not approving, the entry. Roberts 37