Sanimax operated a recycling plant in the Village of DeForest, and obtains grease and used cooking oil from restaurants’ grease traps in the restaurants’ drains leading to the municipal sewer system. Sanimax does not pay for the grease, but the restaurants retain the cooking oil and sell it to Sanimax. Following a fire in 2014, Sanimax sought approval from the Village zoning administrator for reconstruction and expansion of its grease and oil processing operation, but was denied. Sanimax then filed an appeal of the zoning administrator’s denial of approvals with the Village of DeForest Board of Zoning Appeals, which affirmed the zoning administrator’s application of the “waste material … processing … as a principal use” language to Sanimax and the administrator’s corresponding denial of approvals sought by Sanimax. Sanimax then sought review in the circuit court, which vacated the Board’s decision and directed the Board to enter an order finding that Sanimax’s grease and oil processing was a permitted use in the M-2 district where Sanimax was located.
In this appeal, Sanimax argued that the plain meaning of “waste material … processing … as a principal use” did not cover its processing of grease and used cooking oil. The court analysed whether the words “waste material … processing …as a principal use” covered Sanimax’s processing of the grease and cooking oil from restaurants into an ingredient in animal feed. According to the Village, the relevant dictionary definitions of “waste” were “unused,” “unusable,” and “unwanted.” Under this definition, the court agreed with Sanimax’s central point that, like wood pulp and other unprocessed raw materials, the grease and oil here had current value because they were raw materials that could be profitably processed into a salable product. Additionally, the limitation on “waste material … processing” appeared under the “Utility/Government Related Uses” subheading. Thus, the court held that “waste” in this context referred to the sort of waste that did not interest a private business like Sanimax. The court therefore affirmed the circuit court’s holding in favor of Sanimax.
Sanimax USA, LLC v Village of Deforest Board of Zoning Appeals, 2017 WL 129928 (WI App. 1/12/2017)
Posted by: Patricia Salkin | February 5, 2017
WI Appeals Court Finds Processing of Grease and Used Cooking Oil was Not “Waste” Processing Under the Zoning Ordinance
Posted in Current Caselaw, Definitions, Uncategorized
Categories
- Access to Government
- Accessory Uses
- ADA
- Adequate Public Facilities Ordinances
- Adirondacks
- Adult Entertainment Facilities
- Aesthetics
- Affordable Housing
- Aging
- Agricultural Uses
- Airports
- Alcohol Sales
- Alienation of parkland
- Amending Zoning
- animals
- Annexation
- Antitrust
- Architectural Review Board
- Authority to Zone
- Big Box/Formula Retail
- Book Reviews
- Brownfields
- Building Codes
- Building Permit
- Cemeteries
- Climate Change
- Collateral Estoppel
- Comprehensive Plan
- Condemnation/Eminent Domain
- Conditions on Approval
- Conservation Easements
- Constructive Approval
- Consultants
- Contract Zoning
- COVID
- Current Caselaw
- Current Caselaw – New York
- Density Bonus
- Development Agreements
- Development Rights Agreements
- Discrimination
- Drones
- Dual Zone Parcel
- Due Process
- Easements
- Educational Use
- Endangered Species
- Energy
- Enforcement
- Environmental Justice
- Environmental Review
- Equal Protection
- Equitable Estoppel
- Ethics
- Exactions
- Exclusionary Zoning
- Exemption from Zoning
- Extraterritorial Jurisdiction
- Fair Housing Act Amendments
- Family
- Federal Preemption
- Fees
- FHA
- Financing
- first amendment
- Floating Zones
- Flood Control
- FOIL
- Food Trucks
- Formula Retail
- Fourth Amendment
- Fracking
- GIS
- Growth Management
- Hearings
- Highways and Roads
- Historic Preservation
- Home Occupations
- Homeland Security
- Host Community Agreements
- Hours of Operation
- Housing
- Immunity
- Impact Fees
- Incentive Zoning
- Inclusionary Zoning
- Intergovernmental Conflicts
- inverse condemnation
- Junkyards
- Laches
- Marcellus Shale Gas Drilling
- Mediation
- Medical Marijuana
- Mining
- Mobile Homes
- moratoria
- New Legislation
- Non-Conforming Uses
- Notice
- Nuisance
- Oceans
- official map
- Overlay Zone
- Paper Streets
- Pine Barrens
- Planned Development Districts
- Players in the Land Use Game
- Preemption
- Procedural Issues
- Bonds
- Certiorari
- Consent Decree
- Declaratory Relief
- Estoppel
- Final Decisions
- Findings
- Injunctive Relief
- Intervention
- Judicial Abstention
- Jurisdiction
- Legislative vs Adjudicatory
- Mandamus
- Mootness
- Necessary Parties
- Notice of Decision
- Prior Precedent
- Referral Requirements
- Res Judicata
- Rooker-Feldman Doctrine
- Time of Application Rule
- Property Rights
- Public Trust Doctrine
- Purchase of Development Rights
- qualified immunity
- Redevelopment
- Referenda
- Regional Planning
- Religious Uses – Non-RLUIPA
- Remedies
- Residency Restrictions
- Restrictive Covenants
- Rezoning
- Ripeness
- RLUIPA
- Second Amendment
- Section 1983 Liability
- Senior Housing
- Setback Requirement
- Short Term Rentals
- sign
- Signs
- Site Plan Review
- SLAPP Suits
- Smart Growth
- solar energy
- Special Facts Exception
- Special Use/Exception
- Split Lots
- Spot Zoning
- Standing
- Statewide Planning
- Statute of Limitations
- Straddled Parcels
- Student Housing
- Subdivision Regulation
- Takings
- tatoo parlors
- Transfer of Development Rights
- Uncategorized
- Urbanism
- Utilities
- Variances
- Various Uses
- Vested Rights
- Waivers
- Wetlands
- Wind Development
- Wireless Communications
- Younger Abstention Doctrine
- Zoning – Interpretation
- Zoning Administration
- Zoning Boards of Appeal
- Zoning Map
- Zoning-Adopting/Amending
Leave a comment