Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/01/1997

Home

Page 6 -- February 25, 1997 Z.B. concluding the matter in just one meeting, instead of giving the matter the "hard look" the statute required. The court granted the residents judgment and declared Local Law 1994 invalid. It found Hammond should have been disqualified from voting. The court said Hammond's participation compromised the vote. The town appealed. DECISION: Reversed, in favor of the town. The board's vote on Local Law 1994 had to be upheld. Hammond did not have a conflict of interest. The new law would not impact his permit, and the possibility Hammond might apply for a future permit did not invalidate his vote. The conflict-of-interest claim would be supported only if the vote affected Hammond privately or personally -- not in ways he had in common with the general public. Since Local Law 1994 would affect all property owners, Hammond would not receive any special privileges --just the rights afforded to him as a property owner. As for the board's conduct as a whole, it did not violate the Act. Though the board took only one meeting to make a decision, it satisfied the Act's requirements by hiring the environmental firm and analyzing Local Law i994's impact on numerous environmental aspects. Because the board followed standard procedure and because Hammond's vote was valid, the board's decision was upheld. Special Exception -- Did statute exempt proposed hog house from zoning ordinance? Kuehl v. Cass Cou~O; 555 N. W. 2d 686 (Iowa) 1996 The Kuehls and Hollmans (buyers) wanted to buy a 5-acre lot in Cass County, Iowa, on which to operate a hog-confinement facility. One of the buyers had been farming in the area since 19773 and farmed 2,000 acres of corn and soybeans on property next to the proposed facility. Before buying the land, the buyers notified the county zoning administrator of their plan to build a facility that would house about 2,000 hogs. They anticipated building a similar facility later. The only equipment to be located on the property would be that needed for the hog operation. Under an agreement with another company, the buyers would receive the hogs at a certain stage in their development, raise them, then return them for sale. The zoning administrator told the buyers that under the county zoning ordinance, the proposed facility was not a permitted use without a special exception permit from the board of adjustment. The buyers argued to the board of adjustment that they didn't need a permit because a state statute exempted their proposal from the ordinance's restrictions. The statute stated, "no ordinance adopted under this chapter applies to ... buildings or structures that are primarily adapted, by reason of nature and area, for use for agricultural purposes." r~(4~ The board found the facility would not be used for agricultural purposes,