Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/07/2006

Home

- -----..-.----- _..._-~- Z.B. November 10,2006 - Page 3 1992, the county board of commissioners amended the CUP to permit the ex- pansion of the mine onto an additional 16 acres. In 1999, the board issued a separate CUP for a 200-horse commercial stable that would attract up to 150 visitors on any given Saturday. Hanson submitted an application for expansion of the CUP to allow for the mining of an additional 128 acres. The application proposed continuing to mine the southeast comer of the property at existing levels and to open a new pit in the north central part of the property on land used for horse boarding, trail riding, hayrides, and hay cropping. The proposed new pit would be on land that acted as a buffer between a local neighborhood .and the existing mining pit. After several hearings, the board voted to deny the application. . Hanson sued the board in court. DECISION: Judgment in favor of the board. A CUP application could be denied only for reasons relating to the public health, safety, or welfare or incompatibility with a comprehensive zoning plan. On appeal, the grieving party had to show that there was not sufficient evi- dence in the record to establish a valid reason for denying the application. Here, substantial public testimony had been presented on disruptive noise from the mining activity, dust and noise generated by current traffic, the lack of turn lanes and traffic controls on nearby intersections, and personal experience and knowledge of accidents and emergency calls that had occurred nearby. Most importantly, the focal point for the proposed operation abutted the Carver Highlands residential neighborhood. Consequently, expanding the min- ing area - which had the potential of generating up to 800 daily truck trips - would provide virtually no buffer from the existing residential land uses to the proposed industrial mining activities. Ultimately, the court found that the expanded mine would not be compatible with the residential land uses in the neighborhood, and it upheld the board's decision. see also: Picha v. County of McLeod, 634 N. W2d 739 (2001). Due Process - Disgruntled property owner sues after losing nonconforming use status Commissioner believed owner may have lied on application Citation: Holly v. City of Ecorse, u.s. Dist. Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Dil1ision, No. 05-74238 (2006) MICHIGAN (09/22/06) - Sometime prior to 1982, Holly purchased a residence in the city of Ecorse. In 1982, the city zoning department enacted an ordinance that rendered Holly's use of his property nonconforming, because the back edge of the home was too close to an alley. @ 2006 Quinlan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048. 67