Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/03/2009

Home

! i I I 'I ! ! \ ! J i I I I I I I r. 50' August 25,20091 Volume 31 No. 16 Zoning ,Bulletin In reaching its conclusion, the court emphasized that, as creations of the state, municipalities possessed only such rights and powers as had been granted to them expressly by the state. Examining the language of S 8~25, the court found that the statute granted municipalities the au- thority to, among ,other things: provide for "harmonious and safe in- tersections between proposed streets and existing or proposed principal thoroughfares.~' However, the court found there was nothing in S 8-2$ that authorized municipalities to, "in the absence of an intersection be- tween a proposed street and an existing street," "require the installation of sidewalks on an existing road that abuts a proposed subdivision." , The PZC had maintained, that it could require Buttermilk to install the sidewalk. It said this was because of. the authority granted to the PZC under S 8-25 to "provide that the land to be subdivided shall be of such character that it can be used for building purposes without danger to the health or the public safety." The court rejected this argument. It, found 'that the grant of authority under S 8-25 "clearly and unambigu- ously" was restricted to "the land to be subdivided"-per the language of the statute. The PZC had the authority under S 8-25 t6 require the installation' of sidewalks within the boundaries of the proposed subdi- vision. However, the PZC could not require sidewalks outside of ~ose boundaries (unless there was an intersection between a proposed street and an existing street-which there was not here). ' See also:Property Group, Inc. v. Planning and Zoning Com'n of Town of Tolland, 29 Conn. App. 18, 613 A.2d 1364 (1992), judgment aff'd, 226 Conn. 684, 628 A.2d 1277 (1993). Case Note: The court. further concluded that, in light of the town's statutory obligation (Conn. Gen. Stat. S 13a-99) to buil4 and main~ tain roads within its borders, it was the town that had to bear the burden of off-site improvements. The PZC could not shift this bur- den to Buttermilk. " Proced':.lres-Board denies landovvpers' conditional use permit application Denial was based on original application, not amended application Citation: duCharme v. Otter Tail County Bd. of Com'rs, 2009 WL 1851445(Minn. Ct. App. 200.9) MINNESOTA (06/30/09)-Pierre and Mary duCharme owned prop- erty in the C01IDty. In October 2007, they applied to the county's Board 4 @ 2009 Thomson Reuters " ( <'=') .=) C/ l)