Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/07/1997

Home

Z.B. August 25, 1997 - Page 7 -_ I I - r i agricultural freight. The board stated the soybean transfer station would decrease truck traffic in the area by using railroads to ship goods, which would make the area safer for pedestrians. It also found that because rail freight was cheaper than trucking, the public would benefit by decreased costs and a boost to the local economy. The town board reissued Cargill the conditional use permit, and the neighbors appealed again. DECISION: Affirmed. The town board properly issued Cargill a conditional use permit. The evidence supported issuing the permit, so the town board's decision wasn't arbitrary. The evidence showed that allowing the soybean transfer station would decrease truck traffic, which would decrease noise and dust. Using rail transportation would reduce the safety risks associated with truck traffic, and the rail cars could be used to haul the products from the adjacent feed mills as well. Moreover, the community would benefit from the cheaper freight costs associated with rail transportation. see also: Coastal Ready Mix Concrete Co. Inc. v. Board of Commissioners, 265 S.E.2d 379 (1980). CO & T Corp. v. Board of Adjustments of Wilmington, 411 S.E.2d 655 (1992). Annexation - Did sewer connection agreement allow city to annex landowner's property? Bratcher v. City of Las Vegas, 937 P.2d 485 (Nevada) 1997 A developer owned property outside, but adjacent to, the Las Vegas city limits. In 1991, the developer made a sewer connection agreement with the city, where the city agreed to provide sewer services to the property and the developer agreed the city could annex the property into its boundaries "as soon as it may legally do so." The sewer agreement was binding on the developer's successors. The developer also signed a 1991 petition for annexation and recorded it with the county along with the sewer agreement. The petition described the property to which it referred in Exhibits A and B. However, Exhibits A and B were not attached to the petition, and Exhibit B was not recorded with Exhibit . A. Six months later, the sewer agreement was re-recorded with Exhibits A and B, but without re-recording the annexation petition. In 1991, the city could not have annexed the land because it was not yet contiguous to the city. Also, the 1991 petition did not accurately describe the external boundaries of the territory, as the annexation ordinance required. Another developer bought the property and subdivided it into single-family homes. Bratcher bought one of these lots and did a title search before closing. Bratcher's lot was described in Exhibit B, so her title search revealed the sewer agreement as an encumbrance but not the 1991 annexation petition. Although the sewer agreement provided the city "may" annex the property, Bratcher <-6l..\ claimed she was unaware of any impending annexation because the 1991 petition