Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/06/2011

Home

Zoning Bulletin November 25, 2010 Volume 41 No. 22 no evidence that the issue of public need was even debated prior to ap- proval of the variance. See also: Drews v. City of Hattiesburg, 904 So. 2d 138 (Miss. 2005). See also: Cockrell v. Panola County Bd. of Sup'rs, 950 So. 2d 1086 (Miss. Ct. App. 2007). Case Note: The court also found that Memphis Stone failed to prove that it would suffer difficulties or hardship without the vari- ance— prerequisites for a grant of a variance. Validity of Regulations — County commission denies subdivision preliminary plat approval Landowner appeals, challenging subdivision regulations as "unconstitutionally vague" Citation: Ex parte Baldwin County Planning and Zoning Com'n, 2010 WL 4148532 (Ala. 2010) ALABAMA (10/22/10)—This case addressed the issue of whether par- ticular subdivision regulations were void as "unconstitutionally vague" be- cause they allowed for the exercise of discretion by the zoning commission. The Background/Facts: Montrose Ecor Rouge, L L C ( "Montrose ") owned a 7.98 acre parcel of land in the county. The parcel fronted Mobile Bay. Portions of the parcel were rated by the Federal Emergen- cy Management Agency ( "FEMA ") as being: "subject to a high risk of flooding and ...also subject to velocity- driven waves in a storm." Oth- er portions of the parcel were rated as being: "subject to a high risk of flooding but not subject to velocity- driven waves in a storm." Montrose proposed to subdivide the parcel into eight Lots. In Novem- ber 2007, Montrose applied to the county Planning and Zoning Corn - mission (the "Commission ") for preliminary -plat approval for the subdi- vision and development of the parcel for residential purposes. Ultimately, the Commission denied approval of the plat. Denial was based on the Commission's determination that the plat "failed to con- form" to certain of the county's subdivision regulations because some of the lots lay "in an area prone to severe flooding." Section 1.2.2 of the county's subdivision regulations prohibited land subdivision on land that could not be used safely for building purposes without danger to health or peril from flood. Section 5.1 provided mini- mum standards, but required higher standards be met when necessary to "protect or provide for public health, safety, or welfare." Section 5 2 2 © 2010 Thomson Reuters 7 43