Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/01/1997

Home

Z.B. ~ February 25, 1997 m Page 5 capricious. The association appealed. DECISION: iReVersed and returned to the lower court. The city ~ould not zone the property or amend the sector plan without following reZCning procedures. The city planning ordinance stated sector development plans "created" zoning. Once 'annexed, the company's property lost its county-designated zone and adopted the city's sector-plan zone (RA-1). Any zone created by the sector plan had as much authority as an ordinance-created zone, so a zoning change required following rezoning procedures. The RA-111zone wasn't "advisory" simply because the city adopted sector plans via resolution rather than ordinance. Resolutions were passed with the same formalihes as ordinances, so it didn't matter that they were called something different. When a resolution was "in substance and effect an ordinance or permanent regulation, the name given it is immaterial." Williams v. City of Tucumcari, 249 P. 106 (1926). Board Did quick proceedings compromise town board's rezoning vote? l~yer v. Town of Poestenkill, 648 _N.Y.S. 2d 768 (New York) 1996 In 1992, Hammond, a dairy farmer in the town of Poestenkill, N.Y., got a permit to min~ land for agricultural purposes. The next year, the town board passed "Local'., Law 1993," which prohibited the rezoning of residential areas for gravel rain!rig. After Local Law 1993 was passed, Hammond ran for a seat on the town board, denouncing the law and including the issue in his platform. He was elected. Once a board member, Hammond proposed "Local Law 1994," which would permit property owners to apply to rezone up to 10 acres in a residential area for gravel mining. To consider such a law, the board had to follow the State Environmental.. Quality Review Act, which required it to identify the relevant environmental, factors of the rezoning, scrutinize them, and be able to elaborate on its decisioni The board!: held a public hearing, then met months later to decide on Hammond's proposed law. The town of PoestenkiI1 hired an environmental engineering fi~m, which addressed the proposed law's impact on air quality, plants and animals and public health, among other factors. After this one meeting, the town board voted 3-2 in favor of Local Law 1994. Residents objected to Hammond's vote, claiming his mining interests constituted a c~nflict of interest. The town's Ethics Board found no conflict of interest and supported Hammond's right to vote. Residents ~ued the town, challenging Local Laxv 1994's validity for two reasons. First, ~!hey argued Hammond had a financial stake in the issue and should not hav~ voted. Though Hammond's 1992 permit was not in jeopardy, the residents argued he owned other land and could stand to benefit from his proposed law.~Second, they claimed the town board violated the Act by