Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/01/2008

Home

Zoning Bulletin The court also found that the Clarks and Perez failed to establish an equal protection claim when they alleged that there were three similarly situated projects that had each been granted municipal wa- ter and sewer service. The court said that a claim alleging violation of equal protection rights required claimants to show that they were treated differently from others similarly situated based on impermis- sible considerations such as race, religion, intent to inhibit or punish the exercise of constitutional rights, or malicious or bad faith intent to injure a person. The court said that the required comparison of entities similarly situated required similar situation in all relevant re- spects. Their claim failed, the court said, because two of the projects they claimed were similarly situated were, by their nature as an af- fordable housing project and an industrial park, significantly differ- ent from the proposed subdivisions. Although the third project was of the same type, a subdivision, the court found it was located on a parcel of land different from the Clark-Perez land, and did not have similar concerns regarding possible aquifer contamination or prop- erty ownership disputes. Because of the failure to show a similar- ly situated entity and a plausible violation of the equal protection clause, the court said it need not reach the question of whether an equal protection claim would be established if differential treatment had been shown. See also: Creative Environments) Inc. v. Estabrook) 680 F.2d 822, 17 Env't. Rep. Cas. (BNA) 2180 (1st Cir. 1982). Grounds for Denial-Town denies applicant's proposed subdivision based on subjective requirements Applicant argues denial did not provide it with sufficient notice and was not supported by substantial evidence Citation: Blue Ridge Co.) L.L.c. v. Town of Pineville) 655 S.E.2d 843 (N.c. Ct. App. 2008) NORTH CAROLINA (02/05/08)-Blue Ridge Co., L.L.c. applied to the town's planning board (the board) for approval of a 102 lot residential subdivision (the Subdivision) on property it owned in the town (the property). The property was located adjacent to Lakeview Drive, the main street in a residential neighborhood of about fifty homes (Lakeview Neighborhood) and the only means of access to the property. The board denied the application. Blue Ridge appealed to the Town Council. After a hearing, the Town Council found that Blue Ridge did not meet the requirements of the town's subdivision ordinance ~ 6.150, and denied the applica- tion. Among other things, ~ 6.150 required subdivisions to be con- sistent with "specific policies or plans for public facilities such as . . . 10 28