Minutes 09/28/1993 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 1993 To the best of our information, Mr. Brooks and his family are the only person living "immediately adjacent" to the R. P. Thomas Trucking terminal under Mr. Worthy's interpretation of this requirement. However, again to the best of our information, Mr. Brooks is not a "homeowner." The owner of the home in which he resides lives in Connecticut. Whatever danger the non-conforming use may present to Mr. Brooks or anyone else in the neighborhood, it clearly presents no danger to someone living in Connecticut. Therefore, based on the information we currently possess, the basic condition of applicability of the amendment to the R. P. Thomas Trucking Company does not exist. Obviously, this inapplicability could be cured if Mr. Brooks held title to the property and/or if the actual homeowner lived in that house. It could also be cured if the General Assembly amended the statute authorizing Council to adopt the Amendment. However, even if the homeowner did live on the property, City Council would still have to determine that the non-conforming use posed "...a clear and present threat to the health and safety..." of the homeowner. To date, all of the studies conducted by the experts from the Commonwealth of Virginia indicate that the temporary storage of hazardous waste on the R. P. Thomas Trucking Company property does not pose a clear and present danger to anyone. Were Council to make a determination that it does pose such a danger, based on the evidence available at this point, I believe Council would be held by a court of law to have acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner and would be ordered to rescind its order of termination. Therefore, absent some credible evidence that the temporary storage of hazardous waste on the R. P. Thomas Trucking company property poses a clear and present danger to the health and safety of the homeowner living in the Brooks' house, this amendment will not effectively cause the termination of that temporary storage. During our public hearing on this amendment we were told by some of the speakers that this is a "moral issue", and there may well be moral overtones to this situation. However, since our country is a nation of laws and not a nation of men, the government, whether Federal, state or local, must act within the confines of the law, regardless of any moral questions a situation may cause. The factual and legal requirements of the Ordinance must be satisfied before a termination of use can be ordered. The General Assembly gave the Council the authority to adopt this amendment to our Zoning Ordinance and shortly Council will adopt it on second reading. However, serious doubts exist as to the applicability of the amendment to the R. P. Thomas situation. While the General Assembly can amend the authorizing law to eliminate the applicability problem, Council can only adopt the amendment as authorized, and that amendment may very well not be effective in terminating the temporary storage of hazardous waste. Nevertheless, by adopting this amendment, Council will have done everything it can do within the authority given to it by the General Assembly. Thank you for your patience in listening to my statement. Upon unanimous vote, Ordinance No. 93-14 was adopted on second reading,