Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/08/2005

Home

216 Page 6--.~uly 10, 2005 Z.B. hate or minor in significance when compared to the primary use of the property and the use in question had to bear a reasonable relationship to the primary use. In determining whether the pigeon coop was an implied accessory use, its presence had to bear a close resemblance and obvious use to the main use -- a residence. There was no obvious or close relationship between a residence-and a pigeon coop, nor was it customary for homeowners in Union Township to have pigeon coops. The record indicated at the time relevant to this case, there were 52,000 residents of Union Township, and only one other pigeon coop, which had been closed down. Accordingly, the ordinance did not permii a pigeon coop to be considered an accessory use and a pigeon coop should not have been deemed an implied accessory use. see also: State v. Russo, 754. A.2d 1210 (2000). Ordinance-- County claims new ordinancejust regulates health and welfare Uses it to deny licensing to proposed transfer station Citation: F.W. Disposal South LLC v. St. Louis County, Court of Appeals of Missouri, Eastern Dist., Div. 3, No. ED84765 (2005) MISSOURI (05/24/05) --F.W. Disposal South LLC (FWD South) wanted to build a transfer station in St. Louis County. The station was a permitted use in the district, subject to the county's licensing procedures. While FWD South's application was pending before the County Department of Health, the county enacted an ordinance that w6uld prohibit FWD South from .building its proposed transfer station on the property because it was located within 1 ;000 feet of a church, tt was undisputed that the county enacted this ordinance without following its own procedures for amending its zoning regulations. FWD South sued, arguing the ordinance was actually a zoning ordinance,' and the county had failed to follow its.own zoning requirements. The court ruled in FWD South's favor. The county appealed, claiming the ordinance was designed to address the health, safety, and welfare concerns of the citizens of the county, and therefore, was simply a valid exercise of the county's police powers. DEC/SION: Affirmed. The ordinance was actually a zoning ordinance. It did not seem the primary purpose of the ordinance's 1,000 foot setback was to protect the public health and welfare. Instead, it appeared the ordinance primarily attempted to minimize or avoid potential "not in my backyard" complaints from nearby citizens. Under those circumstances, it appeared the primary purpose of the ordinance was to restrict where solid waste processing facilities could be located in an effort to promote the uniform development of real estate, not to protect the health, safety, and 2005 Quinlan Pubiisning Group. Any reproduction is prohibited, For more information please call (617) 542-0048.