Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/16/2010 - Special Meeting

Home

Zoning Bulletin July 25, 2010 I Volume 4 I No. 14 The court agreed with the Commission that § 15.2-2311(C) was not applicable in this case. The ZA, in issuing his interpretation, had speci- fied that: he was responding to "a request for an interpretation"; and that "the actual consolidation process [was] a [Commission] function." The ZA's "interpretation" "lacked the finality of an `order, require- ment, decision or determination," found the court. Also, the language of § 15.2-2311(C) applied only to a ZAs "written order, requirement, decision or determination." Moreover, § 15.2-2311(C) only limited the subsequent actions of a "zoning administrator or other administrative officer." The Commission, found the court, was neither. It was not a sin- gular officer, but a multiple member commission. Regardless of the applicability of § 15.2-2311(C), the Church main- tained that the Commission did not have the authority to interpret the zon- ing ordinances "because that responsibility lies exclusively with the [ZA]." The court again disagreed. It noted that the city and state code gave the Commission the authority to approve subdivision plats, and that in ap- proving or disapproving a proposed subdivision plat, the Commission nec- essarily had to interpret and apply relevant zoning ordinances. Since the Church's proposed consolidation constituted a "subdivision," as defined under city code, the Commission necessarily had to interpret the relevant zoning ordinances. Accordingly, the Commission was not obliged to adopt the ZA's interpretation of city Code § 48-800(a), concluded the court. See also: Board of Sup'rs of Stafford County v. Crucible, Inc., 278 Va. 152, 677 S.E.2d 283 (2009). Case Note: The court also concluded that the Commission's denial of the Church's consolidation application was "not arbitrary or ca- pricious." Rather, it was based on the senior planner's report and conclusion that the consolidation would have violated city Code § 48-800(a). Moreover, the court concluded that the denial was properly based on the applicable ordinances. Standing —Landowner appeals board's denial of developer's variance application Board says landowner lacks standing to appeal denial Citation: Campus Associates L.L.C. v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of Tp. of Hillsborough, 2010 WL 2218510 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2010) NEW JERSEY (06/04/10)—This case addresses the following issue: "whether a landowner has standing to appeal the denial of a use variance for its property when the variance application was made by a contract purchaser for the property." ©2010 Thomson Reuters 7 105