Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/02/2011

Home

Zoning Bulletin April 10, 2011 j Volume 5 1 No. 7 certain circumstances, the design of a specific subdivision, including its location and density, [was] subject to approval. The Board did not deny the plat on the ground that cluster developments were not a permitted use, [or that they were inconsistent with the applicable ordinance], but rather on the ground that this particular subdivision, as designed was in- consistent with the purposes." The court concluded that the Board could deny approval of PB's plat, even though it met zoning requirements, be- cause it did not comply with the purposes set forth in the Code when the Code required compliance with the purposes. See also: Maryland -Nat. Capital Park and Planning Com'n v. Washing- ton Business Park Associates, 294 Md. 302, 449 A.2d 414 (1982). See also: Coffey v. Maryland -National Capital Park and Planning Com- mission, 293 Md. 24, 441 A.2d 1041 (1982). Constitutionality of Zoning Decision —Zoning Commission Grants Conditional Use Permit For Less Units Than Landowner Claims Entitlement Landowner argues commission's action amounted to an unconstitutional regulatory taking Citation: Henry v. Jefferson County Com'n, 2011 WL 724666 (4th Cir. 2011) The Fourth Circuit has jurisdiction over Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia. FOURTH CIRCUIT (WEST VIRGINIA) (03/03/11)—This case ad- dressed the issue of whether a planning and zoning commission's deci- sion to grant a conditional use permit ("CUP") for less units than the landowner claimed entitlement to amounted to an unconstitutional regu- latory taking or the landowner's property. The Background/Facts: Aubrey Henry ("Henry") owned or had an interest in four adjoining parcels of land totaling 13.69 acres in the county. Henry sought to develop the land. In 2001, Henry applied to the county planning and zoning commission (the "PZC") for a CUP to build a 76-unit townhouse development. The PZC granted Henry's request. However, it limited the number of units to 51. Neighboring landowners appealed the grant of the CUP. Ultimately, the circuit court reversed because it found that the PZC had failed to en- ter sufficient factual findings. After reconsideration, eventually, in 2005, the PZC again granted Henry's CUP, but this time allowing only 14 units. Henry appealed. The county board of zoning appeals (the "BZA") af- firmed the CUP. © 2011 Thomson Reuters