Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/29/2002

Home

120 Page 4 J'aly 0_5,200°_ Last, one board member asked to abstain from voting, and' the board re- fused his request. Because the court found the lower court had properly va- cated the board's ~ant of the special use permit, the board's failure to ~ow Breunig to abstain was moot. Citatfon: M¢Callum v. Marathon Co. un~.. Board of Adjuatment, Court of Appeals of VvYsconsin, No. 01-1437 (2002). see also: In re Estate or'Anderson, 432 N. W. 2d 923 (1988). InJunction -- City seeks to stop wood recycling operation Cindy cites odors, noise, and residential complaints CAL~O.RNL~ (06/i0/02) -- The Greens owned properties within the Fresno cit3, limits and operated a wood recycling bus.Ness on one parcel located near a residential area. 7"ne subject property was zoned R-A, which provided the dis- tr'/ct was "intended to provide for the development of one-family residential estate homes in a semi-mr'a/environment." Here, permitted uses included vari- ous agricultural funclSons. ,' Pr/or to buying the property, the Greens made their intentions known to the planning division of the development department. The department prepared a report providing the Green's proposed use of the propert2' would not produce any significant adverse environmental effects. In September !999, the Greens bought the property in reliance on the city's representation. After the purchase, the Greens spent considerable r/me and' money to prepare the property for the Wood recycling operation. "In September 2000, the city attorney issued an opinion letter congluding the former development director incorrectly ruled the Greens could operate a wood recycling and storage facility on the property. They Were asked to stop ' the operation. The city attorney then sued to permanently stop the Greens. A number of neighbors had objected to the wood recycling business close to their homes. They specifically complained of dust,.noise, and odors. 7"ne Greens responded to the compl',fints and noted, prior to their purchase, they were advised by noise experts the noise level of the machinery would be under the level permitted by the county noise ordinance. The Greens a'm-/bured the noise and odors to nearby farms. The health inspector als° received a number of complaints, which were investigated. The court issued an order stopping the recyciing business, and the Greens appealed. They argued the city could not stop the WOod recycling operation . because the Greens acted on the advice and consent of the city. in acquiring, de,;eloping, and using the property. The court found m fawx of the city. an.d ruled the Greens could not use the equitable estoppel defense because the c/ry's actions upon which the Greens re- lied were "invalid." The court also noted the use ol' the property was in violation I ! I ! I I I I. I I I .I i I i