Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/03/2007

Home

, i '~l April 1, 2007\ Volume 1\ No.7 that supported the board's conclusion. The court found that the hearing did not satisfy the requirements mandated by the zoning ordinance; the board's decision was reversed. See also: Caserta v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of City of Milford, 226 Conn. 80, 626 A.2d 744 (1993). Special Exception-Developer argues special exception permit not necessary to 'process' gas Court must decide if business would actually 'manufacture' new product Citation: Midwest Minerals, Inc. v. Board of Zoning Appeals of Area Plan Dept./Com'n of Vigo County, 2007 WL 686671 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) INDLANA (03/08/07)-Mid~est Minerals owned property that was zoned heavy industrial in Vigo County. Under the county's zoning or- dinance, heavy industrial zones were for businesses that "primarily engage[ d] in manufacturing, construction, wholesaling, warehousing and associated retail, financial and service activities with a need for outdoor storage, processing, or operation." The ordinance listed specific uses for the zone aI1d listed activities that required a special exception permit. Uses requiring a special exception included, but were not limited to, m2J."1ufacturing gas or chemicals. In 2002, Midwest applied to the county board of zoning appeals to open a molecular methane gas processing unit on its property. The planning department found that the proposed use constituted "manufacturing" gas, which required Midwest to apply for.a special ex- ception permit. Midwest did not appeal the finding; instead, it applied for the permit. Ultimately, the permit was denied. Midwest appealed the decision to court, arguing that the board had denied its application erroneously and that, moreover, it should not have had to obtain the permit in the first place. The trial court found that Mid- west could not challenge the decision requiring it to obtain the permit in court; because it had not appealled the board's initial finding regarding the permit, its administrative remedies had not been exhausted. However, the court reversed the decision of the board that denied the application, returning the case before the board and asking it to supply sufficient :find- ings to support its decision. After the trial court's ruling, Midwest appealed the decision requiring it to obtain the special exception permit to the board. The board heard the appeal and decided again that the proposed use required a permit. Midwest appealed this decision to court, and the decision was affirmed. Midwest appealed again. 5 43