a transfer station would not be in harmony with the character of the district or its authorized land uses by stating: “adjoining properties, as well as the surrounding area, while zoned for heavy industrial use, have developed in a light industrial or retail commercial manner, or are used residen-tially.” Appellant’s App. at 467. First, we note that the IZO specifies that the grant must be “in harmony ... with the land uses authorized therein.” Id. at 552 (emphasis added). As the record and the BZA’s finding indicate, the surrounding area is principally zoned for heavy industrial use. The landowners in the area who choose to use their land for commercial or other purposes are still authorized to use their land for heavy industrial use. See id. at 621 (testimony of Staff member Salzman) (<HOLDING>). The BZA’s finding that 600 Land’s proposed
holding that plaintiffs could not relitigate their claim that they were entitled to vsf benefits and that while plaintiffs could have raised additional claims in one or more of the foregoing actions they opted not to do so and they are barred by res judicata from doing so now holding land for speculation is a legitimate commercial use grazing on land so classified subject to a special use permit holding that if undisclosed evidence might have affected the disposition of the summary judgment motion the plaintiffs chose not to disclose the basis of their claim and they did so at their own risk holding that land sales contracts were not securities because they involved no investment in an enterprise even if land was bought on expectation that development of the area would increase the value of the land recognizing that land owners using industrialzoned land for other uses have not given up their right to any of the heavy industrial uses so come tomorrow they could flip a switch and start operating a sawmill if they so chose