Laserfiche WebLink
<br />,.. <br /> <br />Z.B. <br /> <br />August 10,1997 - Page 7 <br /> <br />.~ <br /> <br />published and sent to every municipality in the county. Howell Township did <br />not participate in the hearing or comment on the proposed amendment. <br />The county adopted the amendment and designated McDowell's property <br />as a recycling center. The DEP amended the Monmouth County plan, stating <br />the state's recycling laws preempted local ordinances that were inconsistent <br />with the state laws, but that the recycling centers should comply with local <br />ordinances that were consistent with state law. <br />The township did not seek reconsideration or appeal the DEP's certifica- <br />tion of the amended county plan. <br />After its site was included in the plan, McDowell resubmitted its application <br />to the DEP for a permit authorizing it to blend nonhazardous petroleum- <br />contaminated soil with asphalt. McDowell followed proper procedures for the <br />application, forwarding it to the township for its comments. <br />The township asked a court to restrain McDowell from using its property <br />as a recycling center, arguing that McDowell needed a use variance. The town- <br />ship asked for judgment without a trial. <br />McDowell and the DEP also requested judgment without a trial, arguing <br />that the DEP's regulations preempted local zoning ordinances. <br />The trial court agreed with the DEP and McDowell, concluding the <br />ordinances were preempted. The DEP issued McDowell a recycling permit, <br />allowing it to accept asphalt and concrete for recycling. McDowell started <br />operating the center for asphalt and concrete. The township appealed. <br />DECISION: Affirmed. <br />The state's recycling laws preempted local ordinances. A municipality couldn't <br />impose its land-use regulations over the DEP's regulations. Allowing a mu- <br />nicipality to do so would threaten the DEP's authority to enforce its objectives. <br /> <br />10<6 <br /> <br />Taking - Does business's lack of license prevent it from claiming greater <br />damages? <br />Simmons v. Department of Transportation, 484 S.E.2d 332 (Georgia) 1997 <br />Simmons had a trucking business on four acres of property in Banks County, <br />Ga. He used about two acres for the trucking business and the remainder for a <br />house and a buffer for the business. He made several improvements, installing <br />a mobile home to use as an office, two seRtic systems, and two storage build- <br />ings, as well as 10,000 feet of gravel and multiple loads of dirt for roads. <br />In 1991, the county enacted an ordinance zoning Simmons' land as <br />residential-agricultural. The new ordinance contained a grandfather clause <br />permitting existing nonconforming uses, as long as those uses complied with <br />local laws and had all the necessary permits. <br />When Simmons began the trucking business in 1980, the county didn't re- <br />quire him to get a business license. The next year, however, the county enacted <br />a business-license resolution requiring all businesses in the county to get one. <br />Simmons claimed he didn't know about the requirement until 1994, but <br />promptly applied for the license when he did find out. The county issued <br />