county

Kilgore Cos. v. Utah Cnty. Bd. of Adjustment

Full Case Name
KILGORE COMPANIES, Appellee, v. UTAH COUNTY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, Appellant.
Description

The Utah County Board of Adjustment (the Board) denied the plantiff company's application for a permit to use 65-foot silos due to public concerns about that the increased height of the silos. The Court found there was insufficient evidence to support the Board's decision in denying the permit and found that the plaintiff had met its burden of proof that the additional height of the silos would not have a negative effect on the public health, safety, and welfare or surrounding property
values. The Court affirmed the district court's decision to set aside the Board's denial.

Date
02-07-2019
Court
Court of Appeals of Utah
Jurisdiction
Utah
Plaintiffs
Defendants
Incident Location
Utah County, UT
Disputed Act

Plaintiff company applied for conditional use of two 65-foot silos. The Utah County Board of Adjustment (the Board) denied plaintiff's application. The Board had received public comment with citizens expressing concern "regarding local property values, traffic, road safety, light pollution, and the impact that dust and other emissions have on public health." One resident claimed "she had to 'sleep in [her] closet for [a] year' because the light
from the Plant would shine through her window." Kilgore challenged the Board's denial in district court, which set aside the Board's denial. Utah County appealed.

Holding
The court affirmed the district court's decision to grant plaintiff company's petition and set aside the Board's denial.
Disposition

Green v. Hancock County Bd. of Zoning Appeals

Full Case Name
Todd GREEN, et al., Appellants-Petitioners, v. HANCOCK COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS and Joyce Holmes, Appellees-Respondents
Description

County Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) granted a special exception to a property owner for construction of a banquet hall within an agricultural zoning district despite neighbor objections based on adverse effects to community. The court ruled that the BZA did not act outside of its statutory authorization and the proposed facility was acceptable for a special exception.

Date
07-18-2006
Court
Court of Appeals of Indiana
Jurisdiction
Indiana
Plaintiffs
Defendants
Incident Location
Center Township, IN
Disputed Act

Property owner sought to build a banquet hall in agricultural zoning district. Neighbors objected to property owner's petition based on adverse effects to property values, increased traffic volume, community endangerment, and increased noise and light pollution. The Hancock County Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) granted the property owner a special exception for construction. Neighbors sought judicial review; Circuit Court affirmed; neighbors appealed.

Holding
BZA did not act outside of its statutory authorization. The proposed facility was an acceptable commercial recreational use for zoning ordinance special exception.
Disposition

Oliver v. Loudoun County Board of Supervisors

Full Case Name
Lynn Oliver et al. v. Loudoun County Board of Supervisors, Branch Banking & Trust Co., and Glynn Tara Estates, L.L.C.
Date
12-02-2011
Court
Loudoun County Circuit Court
Jurisdiction
Virginia
Plaintiffs
Defendants
Incident Location
Aldie, VA; Loudoun County, VA
Disputed Act

County purchased two lots of land from developer to build a fire and rescue station. Residential neighbors brought action for equitable servitude and injunctive relief, citing expectation of development plots being reserved for residential-use only and the development of a fire and rescue station would cause harm through increased traffic, noise, and light pollution.

Holding
The Court found that the County had proper notice that the development plots were restricted to residential use and therefore enjoined the County from using the property from non-single family residential purposes.
Disposition

State ex rel. Karsch v. Camden County

Full Case Name
STATE of Missouri, ex rel. KARSCH, et al., Appellants, v. CAMDEN COUNTY, Missouri, Board of Adjustment, Respondent
Description

Plaintiff developer applied for a conditional use permit to build condominiums on his property. The County Board of Adjustment denied the application following laywitness testimony about concerns with regard to increased traffic, noise, litter, and light pollution. The Court found that the laywitness concerns were contained in the list of reasons set out in section 408.4 of the Code which support the denial of a request for a conditional use permit. The Court affirmed the trial court's judgment that the County Board of Adjustment did not err in denying plaintiff developer the application for a conditional use permit.

Date
01-27-2010
Court
Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction
Missouri
Plaintiffs
Defendants
Incident Location
Camden County, MO
Disputed Act

Plaintiff developer sought a conditional use permit to build condominiums on his property. The County Board of Adjustment denied the application following laywitness testimony about concerns with regard to increased traffic, noise, litter, and light pollution. Plaintiff developer sought writ of certiorari to challenge denial. Circuit Court affirmed and developer appealed.

Holding
The Court affirmed the trial court's judgment that the County Board of Adjustment did not err in denying plaintiff developer the application for conditional use permit.
Disposition