Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/05/2008

Home

.- (3.'" , '-.;... '-" : F... . -. 0" . .~. .-" .. -- ~ ":":;:'- May 1 0, 2008 I Volume 2 1 No.9 r->:' ('- The court disagrr:ed with Tonnesen's interpretation. The court said that given the statute's language authorizing local governments to "regulate and control" use of land for that purpose, towns that did not expressly prohibit the us~ of land for aircraft takeoffs and land- ings did not need to accept every proposed use of land for that pur- pose. Rather, towns could accept only those proposals that complied with their regulations. The court said that the statute's language that aircraft takeoffs and landings must be considered "valid and permit- ted accessory uses," did not prohibit the imposit~on of conditions on the accessory use. Therefore, the court concluded, under the sta:tute, aircraft takeoffs and landings could be regulated by requiring land- owners to obtain a special exception. . See also: Spengler v. Porter., 144 N.H. 163, 737 A.2d 1121 (1999). Case Note: The court explained that it believed its construction of ~ 674:16, V supported the constitutional right to use and en- joy one's property. The court said that to construe the statute as Tonnesen had would limit the town to two choices: prohibit air- craft takeoffs and landings throughout a zoning. district or per- mit it throughout the district. Either choice,. the court said, could Unnecessarily limit the right of property owners to use and enjoy their property. The court said under such an interpretation, land- owners in areas where aircraft takeoffs and landings were accept- able could be unnecessarily restricted in their use and enjoyment of the land; and full permission could unnecessarily restrict the use and enjoyment of land by neighboring landowners in areas where aircraft takeoffs and landings were unacceptable. Variance~ Town denies landowner's application for area variance to subdivide h,er property Landowner argues denial was arbitrary and. capricious because town: failed to explain its departure from pri()r granted'variances Citation: London v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Huntington, 2008 WL 740523 (N. Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2008) NEW YORK (03/18/08)-]oann London owned a 1.1 acre lot in the town in an area that was zoned for one-acre lots. Wanting to subdivide her property into two lots so that a second house could be built on the property, she sought area variances from the town's zon- 11 ~ ,*." E: '.;, ........ I .~'=>.... I' i. 91