Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/01/2008

Home

April 10,20081 Volume 21 NO.7 schools" (the school-impact provision) that were on file in the town's offices. Section 6.150 also required subdivisions proposed in areas with existing development be planned" so as to protect and enhance the stability, environment, health and character of the neighboring area." The Town Council based its denial on overcrowding of schools and traffic. The Town Council noted that Blue Ridge failed to show conform with the school-impact provision of ~ 6.150. The Town Council said Blue Ridge failed to show that additional students would not adversely affect the stability, environment, health and character of the neighboring area. After finding it was the town's policy to have children attend neighborhood schools, the Town Council found that Blue Ridge did not submit evidence as to the im- pact of the Subdivision on neighborhood schools. The Town Council also found that the use of Lakeview Drive would increase current traffic, and that the Subdivision did not protect the Lakeview Neigh- borhood from "non-compatible encroachment" in violation of the town's Land Use Plan. Blue Ridge appealed to the superior court, arguing that denial of its subdivision plan was arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable. The lower court found that Blue Ridge complied with the objec- tive technical and engineering standards set forth by the town. It found that the denial of the subdivision plan was based on subjective requirements, which did not provide Blue Ridge with sufficient no- tice of what the town expected. The lower court reversed the Town Council's denial and remanded the matter for a new hearing with the Town Council. It also ordered the town to provide Blue Ridge with any plans for public facilities required for the subdivision and specific criteria regarding the environmental, health, and character Of neighboring areas considered by the Town Council in determining whether a proposed subdivision complies with ~ 6.150. The town appealed, arguing that its decision to deny the subdi- vision was supported by substantial evidence. It also argued that it was under no obligation to instruct subdivision applicants as to what and how they should present their applications. Blue Ridge also appealed, arguing that its subdivision plan should have been approved without remanding for a new hearing. DECISION: Affirmed. The court concluded that the Town Council's decision to reject the Subdivision was improper. The court said this was because the Town Council relied on subjective criteria, and Blue Ridge was not provided with adequate guidance or notice as to that criteria. The court found that the Town Council could not deny Blue Ridge's subdivision plan on failure to provide a school impact study 11a 29