Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/07/1997

Home

- I Z.B. August 25, 1997 - Page 5 . r DECISION: Reversed. The company was not allowed to store petroleum products on its property. The town ordinance was not preempted by state law. The Petroleum Bulk Storage Code regulated the installation and maintenance of fuel storage talks, and preempted all local regulation of the same field. The town's zoning ordinance, however, didn't cover the installation, maintenance, or storage of petroleum - it regulated w~rehouses. The board reasonably concluded the zoning ordinance categorically prohibited the company's proposed use. It was reasonable to find that storing petroleum products 1,000 feet from a reservoir posed a danger of water pollution and therefore wasn't "nonpolluting" and "nonhazardous." Moreover, the company failed to prove the terms nonpolluting and nonhazardous were too vague. see also: Oil Heat Institute of Long Island v. Town of Babylon, 548 N. Y.S.2d 305. Ordinance - Town says zoning challenge is irrelevant because landowner sold property Messer v. Town of Chapel Hill, 485 S.E.2d 269 (North Carolina) 1997 Editor's Note: This case summarizes the appeal of a decision reported in the April 1 0, 1997, issue of Zoning Bulletin. lf2..- Hunt owned 150 acres of undeveloped land in Chapel Hill, N.C. The land was zoned to allow three homes on every acre. The town amended its zoning ordinance, lowering the number of homes that could be built on Hunt's land. Now only one home could be built for every five acres. Before the town amended its zoning ordinance, Hunt's land was worth $3 million. Hunt claimed that after the amendment he cOlildn't sell any homes for more than it cost to build them. He never filed a development prim or requested a variance from the ordinance. Hunt and Messer, who had an interest in Hunt's land, sued the town. The town asked the court to dismiss the suit, which it did. Messer and Hunt appealed. They claimed the zoning amendment was an unconstitutional taking without just compensation and an abuse of the town's police powers. They also argued the amendment was arbitrary and unreasonable. The appeals court affirmed, finding there was no conflict for the trial court to resolve. According to the court, because Hunt never filed a development plan or asked for a variance, there was no evidence about how the amendment would impact his land. Without this evidence, there was no way to determine whether an unconstitutional taking occurred or whether the town exceeded its police powers. Messer and Hunt appealed to the state's highest court. The town asked the court to dismiss the appeal. It argued the issue was me-ot because, while the appeals court's decision was pending, Hunt sold the property for $].5 million.