My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/03/2005
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
2005
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/03/2005
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 9:35:49 AM
Creation date
2/28/2005 2:44:55 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
03/03/2005
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
179
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
z,g. <br /> <br />January 25, 2005 ---- Page 7 <br /> <br /> At a hearing on the matter, several people, including environmental en- <br /> gineers, testified on the dangerg created by the proposed crematorium, and <br /> how these dangers could harm the COmmunity through toxic build-up or <br /> damage to fetal develOpment, especially through the ingestion of the ground- <br /> water. <br /> The city voted to denY the conditiOnal-use permit. <br /> Roselawn sued, and'the cou~ruled in favor of the city. Roselawn appealed, <br /> arguing the city acted unreasonablY~ <br /> DECISION:Affirmed, <br /> Roselawn was not entitled tO the cOnditional-use permit. <br /> The court determined the protection of.general public health, safety, and <br /> welfare was a valid basis to deny a:conditional-use permit. <br /> It Was uncontested~that the crematorium would emit certain toxic p011ut- <br />ants, including carbon monoxide; mercury, hydrogen chloride, dioxins, and <br />furans. The city counciiifocused0n the :emission of mercury because not only <br />did it have a harmful effect on the envirOnment, but also there .was currently no <br />method in the cremato~ process to prevent its emission. Furthermore, it was <br />shown that the cremati°n of individuals, who had reCeived certain cancer treat- <br />ments, would emit radioactive partiCles. <br /> Ultimately, Roselawn failed to Show it could operate a crematorium in such <br />a manner that emissions, of pollutants in a 'residential neighborhood near a <br />reservoir supplying drinking water would not negatively impact the general <br />public health, safety, and welfare; Ttierefore, the court concluded the denial of <br />the conditional-uSe permit was ptoper.i <br />see also: Billy Graham iEvangelist~c A&~ociation v. City of Minneapolis, 653 <br />N. W..2d 638 (2002). " <br />see also: Nordmarken v. City of. Richfield, 641 N.W. 2d 343 (2002). <br /> <br />Conditional Use m Landowner wants:to develop gas station in Water- <br />recharge area . <br />Experts agree a leak could be di~a~tr°us <br />Citation: Salarney v. Dexter Town,hiP Zoning Board of Appeals, Court of <br />Appeals of Michigan, No. 248702 (2004) <br />MICHIGAN (12/02/04) -- Salamey wanted t° develop a gas station on his land <br />abutting an intersectiom A gas station was considered, a conditional use in the <br />commercial district, requiring a propertY owner to obtain a conditional-use permit. <br /> Directly across the-street from Salamey's property were three residences <br />built before the land surrounding the intersection was zoned for corranercial <br />uses. The area was also a water, recharge area, and the underlying soil con- <br />tained a large proportion of gravel. It -was located. 1,000 feet from the. Huron <br />River and the Metro Park system, <br /> <br />© 2005 Quinlan Put)lishing Group2 Any reproduction is p[ohibited. For more information please call (617) 5424048. <br /> <br />97 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.