Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/07/2009

Home

I I I. . i' \" I 46 April 10, 20091 Volume 31 No.7 Zoning Bulletin of those conditions-that Llamas be the beneficiary of a significant govern- mental act allowing development ohhe property-could only be met if the town: (1) accepted proffers or proffered conditions which specified usere- lated to a zoning amendment; or (2) approved a rezone for a specific use or density. The town had argued that while it had accepted proffers related to the re- zoning amendment, those proffers "did not adequately specify the intended 'retail sales' use of the [Parcel] so as to entitle [Llamas] to a vested right to that use free from the subsequent zoning [Amendment] requiring a special permit for a retail sales use that would exceed 80,000 square feet of gross floor space." The court agreed. In doing so, it rejected Llamas' contention that the prohibition of eight specific uses by the proffers constituted a spe- cific reservation of a right to all other uses permissible in the GCD. A devel- opment proffer had to be interpreted according to its plain meaning, said the court. The absence of a prohibition of a use within a proffer could not be read to negatively infer a permitted specific use. See also: City of Suffolk ex rei. Herbert v. Board of Zoning Appeals for City of Suffolk, 266 Va. 137, 580 S.E.2d 796 (2003). Case Note: Alternately, Llamas had contended that even if the require-. ments of Code S 15.2-2307 were not met, they were nonetheless en- \.""'.... \ titled to assert the application of Code S 15.2-2298(B). Code S 15.2- .J 2298(B) provided that no zoning amendment limiting use of a property could be enforced if the property was subject to proffered conditions that, among other things, included a requirement for the dedication of real property of substantial value. Llamas had contended that the re- quirement in the proffers that Llamas create a multi-use path through their proposed project to connect to the town's greenway system was such a "requirement for the dedication of real property of substantial value." The court disagreed, finding the path was not a "donation" of property. Rather, Llamas would: continue to own the property over which the path would run; control the design of the path; and would be responsible 'for maintenance of the path. . Right to Judicial Review-Association challenges issuance of conditional use permit, arguing classification of resort convers.ion was improper County contends Association waived the issue by failing to raise it before planning commission Citation: Big Lake Ass'n v. Saint Louis County Planning Com'n, 761M W:2d 487 (Minn. 2009) 4 @ 2009 Thomson Reuters \') {.~ .m .___._____LI