Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/05/2004

Home

Page 6 -- December 10, 2003 establishment, or any combination thereof." Although the amendments were intended to control aegative secondary effects, the city failed to conduct a study concerning such effects from 60/40 businesses. People Theatres sued, arguing the new amendments were unconstitution- · Aly broad. DECISION: Judgment in favor of People Theatres. The new amendments were unconstitutional. The city had to provide evidence supporting this drastic change to the law. The city did not show the predominant purpose of the amendments was to control negative secondary effects. Because the city failed to show a connec- tion between 60/40 establishments, and negative effects, the amendments were deemed to control the contents of the establishments they sought to regulate and were facially unconstitutional. Ultimately, because the zoning ordinance implicated protected speech, a study of 60/40 establishments had to be conducted. Citation: For the People Theatres of ~V. E Inc. v. The City of New York, S~preme Co~trr of New York, New York County, No. 121080/02 (2003). see also: Doin v. Bl~tff Point Golf& Country Club IJw., 262 A.D. 2d 842 (1999). 138 Special Exception -- Commission denies exception for concrete plant Rules that entire property had to be taken into account CON,~'NECTICUT (09/23/03) -- Ball Company owned over 50 acres of prop- erty located in an industrial zone in Manchester. It wanted to build and operate a new concrete production plant on a 1.9-acre portion. The town's senior planner told Ball special exception approval was neces- sary because Balf's property was more than four acres. Ball applied for a special exception, which was denied. Ball sued, and the court ruled in its rayon The commission appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. The commission improperly interpreted its regulations when it required Ball to apply for a special exception where the actual site on which the pro- posed plant was to be constructed was only 1.9 acres. The zoning regulations mandated "al1 uses which include development of an area in excess of four acres" required approval by the planning and zoning commission after a public hearing. A separate section governing "the regulat- ing of large site development" in industrial zones required "development of site in excess of four acres ... be subject to special exception approval." The special exception permitting process was not triggered by the size of the overall lot on ,,vhJ. ch a proposed development project would sit, but rather the area of that lot that was subject to disturbance as a result of development. As used in the regulations, it was clear both area and site connoted some- thing different .from an entire lot such as would be described within a deed of