Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/10/2003

Home

June 10, 2003 -- Page 7 The Nolans were developers who had not received plat approval for the final phases of three residential subdivisions. They submitted applications for:' vested rights determinations on March 19, 2001. On April 6, 2001, the zoning administrator requested missing information to complete the applications. The Nolans.responded in a timely fashion and submitted about 1,300 pages of docu- ments and invoices, hoping this would satisfy the request. The zoning administrator returned the materials and asked the Nolans to organize the documents in a specific manner. The zoning administrator also asked for copies of deeds and other materials. The Nolans never responded to the request. The town council held a meet- ing on the subject and dismissed the applications because of their incomplete- ness. A letter was seht to the Nolans informing them that the applications were dismissed without prejudice, meaning they could file another application if they so chose. The Nolans sued, asking the court to order the town to ~ant their applica- tion. The lower court dismissed the request, and the Nolans appealed. DECISION: Affirmed, The Nolans failed to establish a prima facie case of error. They were twice informed that their applications were incomplete, and, instead of taking action to correct the problem, they chose to do nothing. Further, the Nolans were notified of the pending dismissal by a letter sent to them on June 8. The court noted that tintil a completed application was submitted to the town, judicial review was premature. Citation: Nolan v. Town of Weddington, Court of Appeals of North Carolina, No. COA02-523 (2003). see also: Kirby Building SyStems v. McNiel, 393 S.E. 2d 827 (1990). see also: Matthews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 47 L.£d. 2d 18, 96 $. Ct. 893 (1976). Variances w Side yard setback variance requested for garage Neighbor appeals WISCONSIN (04/17/03) --Plach owned a dwelling located in an RS-20 zon- ing district, wherein the local zoning ordinance established a minimum side yard setback of 15 feet. · Plach applied for a variance for the residence and attached garage he pro- posed to build. His plans indicated the west side would come within t2 feet of the west lot line, and the east side of the garage would come to within 11 feet of the east line. Plach cited a number of reasons for the request, including the ability to turn his car around on the property enabling him to safely drive onto the adjacent street. 195