Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/01/2008

Home

Zoning Bulletin because the subdivision ordinance did not expressly require a school impact study. The court also found that the Town Council could not deny the Subdivision based on failure to support a town policy for children to attend neighborhood elementary schools because there was no such policy. The court said there was only a letter noting that the county schools wanted the town's students to have neighborhood schools. Even assuming that letter set forth a "policy" for neighbor- hood schools, the letter was not available to Blue Ridge until the day of the hearing, and therefore did not provide adequate guidance for Blue Ridge to follow, the court said. Moreover, concern about chil- dren attending neighborhood schools existed regardless of the pro- posed Subdivision because the town's elementary school was over capacity at the time of Blue Ridge's subdivision application anyway. The court also said that although the expected increase in traf- fic related to the Subdivision was described as "significant," that alone was not sufficient to find that the Subdivision did not protect and enhance the stability, environment, health and character of the neighboring area. The court found that expert testimony presented to the Town Council was that the expected increase in traffic on Lakeview Drive would not impact the safety of the road. The court said that the Town Council improperly relied on testimony of resi- dents of the Lakeview Neighborhood because that testimony did not rebut the expert testimony as to traffic safety; it only raised concerns about potential noise. The court said denial of a permit could not be founded upon conclusions that were speculative, sentimental, per- sonal, vague or merely an excuse to prohibit the use requested. The court also found the town's denial of the Subdivision on the basis that it did not protect the Lakeview Neighborhood from "non-compatible encroachment" in violation of the town's Land Use Plan was not supported by evidence. Instead, the court found that the proposed Subdivision's smaller lot sizes, improvement on open space, difference in lot sizes, and proposed home sizes were all con- sistent with the goals of the town's Land Use Plan. Finally, the court agreed that remand to the Town Council was warranted. The court said that criteria set forth in a subdivision or- dinance, which is subjective and requires judgment, must provide adequate guiding standards. The trial court's remand for clarification of the subjective criteria in the town ordinance was consistent with insuring procedures specified by law, the court found. [iiii~~ti~~\fl~_'~lr~'~-'L~'_O~C-' 12 30