Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/07/1997

Home

Z.B. September 25, 1997 - Page 5 ~~ i -+ -. to use the property as a disposal site. Therefore, Disposal's use of the prop- erty for that purpose wasn't a legal nonconforming use under the Rothschild ordinance. The trial court needed to determine appropriate remedies for Foresight. Though Weston's zoning ordinance didn't expressly prohibit Disposal's use of its property, that didn't mean it allowed the use. As did most zoning ordinances, Weston's ordinance explicitly listed uses permitted within each district - and all other uses were necessarily prohibited. The permit Disposal got from the town of Weston wasn't a conditional use permit. The Weston ordinance didn't list disposal sites as a conditional use. A conditional use permit only allowed an owner to put his or her prop- erty to a use that the ordinance expressly allowed when certain conditions were met. Nor did the permit authorize Disposal to use its property as a disposal site. A permit issued for a use prohibited by a zoning ordinance was illegal per se. see also: Snyder v. Waukesha County Zoning Board of Adjustment, 247 N. W.2d 98 (1976). . State ex: reI. Skelly Oil Co. v. Common Council, 207 N. W.2d 585 (1973). 9<t Conditional Approval- Can property owner challenge preliminary plat approval in court? Bothwell v. City of Eagle, 938 P.2d 1212 (Idaho) 1997 Jayo Construction Inc. wanted to develop a subdivision in the city of Eagle, Idaho. It applied to the city for approval of a preliminary subdivision plat and for a floodplain development permit. The city council approved the preliminary plat application, but neither approved nor denied the floodplain permit application. It conditioned its approval of the preliminary plat application on Jayo's getting approval of a final subdivision plat and a floodplain permit. The council said if would hold a public hearing before granting final plat approval. Under the city code, a preliminary plat was the first formal presentation by drawings of a proposed subdivision. Preliminary approval allowed the applicant to survey the property and prepare a final plat. Approval of a final plat required a written application, review by a city administrator, possible review by the city planning and zoning commission, review by other city agencies, and finally, action by the city council. The council could "approve, ap- prove conditionally, disapprove or table the final plat for additional infor- mation." The state Local Land Use Planning Act allowed an "affected person ag- grieved by a decision" to appeal to court. It defined "affected person" as "one having an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by the issuance or denial of a permit authorizing the development." Bothwell (and other property owners) sued the city. He asked the court to review the council's approval of the preliminary plat application. The court