Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/02/2005

Home

Page 6 --April 25, 2005 eraI hearings, the city council denied Deep Dish's application. Deep Dish appealed, arguing its Equal Protection rights were violated be- cause it met ail legal requirements for a liquor-license upgrade and was still denied a license. DECISION:Afire'ned. The city council did not violate Deep Dish's fight to equal protection. The city council had broad discretion in determining whether to issue or renew a liquor license, Deep Dish claimed the city council violated its constitutional rights be- cause there was nothing on its application that disqualified it from obtaining a liquor license. However,, the city council was not required to grant a liquor license simply because the mum requirements were met. Where the minimum requirements were satisfied, the city council had to consider the application, but it was not divested of its legislative authority and responsibility to decide the merits of the application. Ultimately, although Deep Dish met the application requirements, the city council used its discretion to decide Deep Dish was not a business that should be awarded a liquor upgrade. see also: Montelta v. City of Ortertail, 633 N.W. 2d 86 (200i). see also: Bergmann v. City of Melrose, 420 N. W. 2d 663 (1988). Special Exception _2.' Commission bases denial on public health grounds One witness states a similar business caused bad odors Citation: Smith Brothers Woodland Management LLC v. Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Monroe, Appellate Court'of Connecticut, No. AC 25324 (2005) CONNECTICUT (03/15/05) m Smith Brothers Woodland Management LLC began operating a wholesale landscape mulch processing operation in 1999. It operated without approval from the local planning and zoning commission and ignored a cease and desist order from the town zoning enforcement officer. In 2002, 'Smith applied for a special exception permit to build a smalI office building, a paved parking area, and large concrete bins for the storage of mulch. At the hearing, 14 people spoke in favor of the application, and only one against it. The commission denied the application. Smith sued, and the court ruled in its'favor. The commission appealed, arguing the mulch-processing.operation was a health risk. DECISION:Affirmed. There was not enough evidence to show the mulch-processing operation posed a health risk to the community.. ] ] 8 63 2005 Quinlan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048.