Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/03/2010

Home

April 10, 2010 ~ Volume 4 ~ No. 7 Zoning Bulletin In other words, here, explained the court, ahe county could not, "under the guise" of the subdivision ordinance §§ 17-2 and 17-36, "enact standards which would effectively permit [the county] to re- zone [Tetra's] property in a manner inconsistent with the uses per- , miffed by the property's zoning classification." Here, §§ 17-36 and ', 17-2 imposed restrictions on the subdivision of Tetra's land which were otherwise permitted by the zoning ordinance. Zoning ordi- nance § 19-128(f) permitted "one acre lots in the Agricultural Dis- trict." However, the effect of §§ 17-36 and 17-2 was to infringe on that right by: restricting "the use of lot subdivisions to the residential zoning district, townhouse residential zoning district, and residential use in a commercial zoning district even though [county zoning ordi- nance] §§ 19-123 and-128(f) permit[ted] residential use and one acre lots, respectively, in the Agricultural District." See also: Board of Sup'rs of Augusta County v. Countryside Inv. Co., L.C., 258 Va. 497, 522 S.E.2d 610 (1999). Case.Note: The circuit .court had ruled that §§ 17-36 and 17-2 were void in their entirety. The Supreme Court of Virginia dis- ' agreed. The Court noted that § 17-2 provided a list of 86 defini- ' tions, and § 17-36 had multiple subsections that were not chal- lenged iri this case. The Court said that the relevant provisions of §§ 17-36 and 1.7-2 were severable and void. Administrative Review-District council withdraws its election to make final decision ', on special exemption request Neighbors say this withdrawal of election is a "final decision" appealable to court Citation: Billings v. County Council of Prince George's County; 2010 WL 671177 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2010) MARYLAND (02/26/10)-This case addressed the following issue: when a district council, after first having notified parties that it had elected to make a final decision in a zoning matter then withdrew its election to make the final decision, did the district council's withdraw- al of its election amount to a "final decision," appealable to court un- der state law? The Background/Facts: Eastern Petroleum Corporation ("East- - ern") owned land in the county on which it operated a store and gas ~. 6 ~ ©2010 Thomson Reuters 48.