Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/07/1997

Home

Page 4 - August 25, 1997 Z.B. authority to. require a lower density than that permitted by zoning laws unless matters of health and safety were at issue. The court affirmed the commission's decision, and the association appealed agam. DECISION: Affirmed. The commission's decision was neither arbitrary nor capricious. The commission properly approved the developer's subdivision plan after concluding the plan complied with the town's subdivision regulations. The commission couldn't require a lower density than that permitted by zoning laws, as the association wanted, unless matters of health and safety were at issue. As the developer noted, the association was trying to down-zone the acreage requirements of Wolf Pen Woods without following the appropriate procedures to effect zoning changes. The association simply refused to accept the rights associated with ownership of property, specifically the right to use property as one saw fit within the parameters of zoning laws. see also: Snyder v. Owensboro, 528 S. Tt:2d 663 (1975). American Beauty Homes Corp. v. Louisville & Jefferson County Planning and Zoning Commission, 379 S. Tt:2d 450 (1964). Storage - Company seeks permission to store oil in economic development district JIJ Realty Corporation v. Costello~ 658 N.Y.S.2d 92 (New York) 1997 JIJ Realty Corporation owned property in the town of Southeast, N. Y The company wanted to store petroleum products (oil and grease) in a two-story building on the property. The property was in an economic development zoning district and was 1,000 feet from a reservoir that supplied water to residents of the town and to New York City. The town zoning ordinance allowed warehouses in the economic development district. It defined a "warehouse" as "a building or structure used for the storage of nonpolluting and nonhazardous manufactured goods." The company asked the town zoning appeals board to interpret the ordinance to let it use the building as a warehouse to store oil and grease. The board denied the company's request. It said the ordinance prohibited the storage of petroleum on the property because warehouses could be used to store only nonpolluting and nonhazardous goods. The company appealed to court. It asked the court to declare its proposed warehouse use was permitted as of right in the district. The company argued the board's interpretation of the ordinance was unreasonable because the terms "nonpoIIuting" and "nonhazardous" were too vague. The court annulled the board's decision and declared that the company could store oil and grease in its building. The court found the state Petroleum Bulk Storage Code, which regulated the installation, maintenance, and storage of petroleum, superseded the town's zoning ordinance. 0.1 The board appealed. 0 .." " "