Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/05/2004

Home

7..g. July 10, 2004 -- Page 5 the same time protecting the town's goal of providing 10 percent of its prop- erty as affordable housing. The district was ultimately approved' by the Cape Cod Commission. A principal purpose of the district was the preservation and maintenance of significant water resources. The district protected the local and regional water supply from contamination occurring from excessive development (spe- cifically from associated nitrogen contamination caused by septic systems). It also protected coastal embayments and shellfish such as clams, scallops, and oysters. The Home Builders Association of Cape Cod Inc. sued, arguing the dis- trict could not preserve affordable housing when its purpose was to protect water quality. The court found in favor Of the association. The. commission appealed, arguing the district of critical planning concern could protect land as well as water. ~ DECISION: Reversed. The district's protections were legal. Although the district of critical planning concern's goal was to protect water quality, this did not mean it was invalid when it also justifiably pre- served some land for affordable housing. There was substantial planning and study behind the nomination of the district, and its purpose of protecting a natural water resource of town and regional significance was supported by the evidence. The major cause of pol- lution was overdevelopment, and this, the district hoped to curb. see also: W.R. Grace & Co.-Conn. v. City Council of Cambridge, 779 N.E. 2d 141 (2O02). see also: Johnson v. Edgarrown, 680 N.E. 2d 37 (1997). Ordinance -- County limits feedlot expansions State legislature had passed conflicting law that covered entire state Citation: David v. Board of' Commissioners of Norton County, Supreme Court of Kansas, No. 89,822 (2004) KANS AS (05/14/04) -- The Board of County Commissioners of Norton Count7 passed a home rule resolution attempting to regulate confined animal feeding operations within the county's borders. David, a feedlot operator, received a state permit before the resolution's passage that would have allowed expanded operations. However, the new reso- lution prohibited such expansion. : David sued, and the court ruled in his ['avor. The county appealed, arguing the resolution did not con:~lict with State [aw because the relevant law did not expressly permit the expansion of confined animal ~'eeding operations. 2004 Quinian Put)lishlnq G(oup. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048. 139