Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/07/2003

Home

July 10, 2003 -- Page 3 The board acted arbitrarily. Pr/or's expert testimony, which was virtually uncontroverted, established 52 of the 100 homes in the immediate area were on substandard lots. Accord- in~ly, the proposed variance had no discernible impact on adjoimng properties and there was no evidence the variance would have an undesirable effect on the neighborhood's character, physical or environmental conditions, or the health, safety, and welfare of the community. Citation: Crystal Pond Homes [nc. v. Prior, Supreme Court of New York, App. Div., 2nd Dept., No. 2002-05077(2003). xee also: Sasso v. Osgood, 657 N. E. 2d 254. see also.: Easy Home. program v. Troika, 276 A.D.2d 553. Variance -- Developer claims similar projects approved Fire chief expresses safety concerns OHIO (05/19/03) -- A/vIC Land Co. LTD. planned to develop 160 acres~ N-me acres were within the City of Canton. The Canton acreage was long and narrow. Because of the configuration and lack of street access, AxMC proposed building a private 990-foot cut-de- sac. AMC requested a variance, claiming two hardships: lack of a roadway con- nection and the fact the planning commission had approved other dead end roadways longer than 500 feet. The fire chief expressed concerns regarding emergency vehicle access. AMC proposed a designated walking path and walking path easement as an alternate safety access route. It claimed the county park service had a~eed to maintain the path. However, the park service' denied reaching any a~eement. The planning commission denied the vahance. AMC sued, and the court ruled in favor of the commission. AxMC appealed, arguing the commission had approved at least 10 other cul-de-sacs in the past. DECISION: Affirmed. The commission's decision was supported by the evidence. Even though the commission approved other cul-de-sacs in the past~ it found AMC's cul-de-sac proposal created safety concerns for city emergency ser- vices. Although AMC claimed an agreement with the park service, no agree- ment was evidently in place. These reasons were sufficient to deny the request. Citation: AMC Land Co. Ltd. v. Canton City Planning Commission, Court of Appeals of Ohio, 5th App. Dist., Stark Co., No. 2002CA00395 (2003). see also: Smith v. Granville Township Board o. fTrustees, 693 N.E. 2d 2f9 (f998). see also: Henley v. Youngstown Board of Zoning Appeals, 735 N.E. 2d 433 (2000). 95