Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/04/1999

Home

Page 6 -- April .25, 1999 z.go The county claimed any impact on Kahuna was the result of the inaccessi- bility and rocky terrain of the site, not the board's conditions. The court affirmed the board's decision, and Kahuna appealed again. DECISION: Affirmed. The development conditions were appropriate and didn't amount to a taking. Though Kahuna claimed the conditions made it impossible for it to use the property, Kahuna could still develop the property -- it just couldn't develop the property the way it wanted. The property had access via the unimproved road and Kahuna could use the property for uses other than a subdivision, so the property was still economically viable. Moreover, the conditions didn't require Kahuna to benefit the federal government. Ex- tending the road and sewer lines to Kahuna's property wouldn't benefit the government. It would benefit only Kahuna's property. The government had no need for the improvements. .:. The board's conditions weren't unduly oppressive and unreasonable. The conditions were designed for the legitimate public purpose of ensuring ad- equate access to the property and sanitary disposal of waste. Requiring Kahuna to connect the road and sewer to existing services was reasonably necessary. The surrounding landowners shouldn't have to pay for roads and sewers just because Kahuna bought a remote piece of property and had unrealistic plans to make money from the land. As the county pointed out, any alleged oppressive impact on Kahuna was the result of inaccessibility and rocky terrain, not the board's conditions. see also: Guimont v. Clarke, 121 Wash. 2d 594, 854 P. 2d I (1993). see also: Presbytery of Seattle v. King County, 787 P. 2d 907 (1990). Special Exception -- Board misses deadline for notifying owner of conditions placed on special exception Citation: Romesburg. v. Fayette County Zoning Hearing Board, Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, No. 3006 C.D. 1998 (1999) A trust owned 130 acres of land in Fayette County, Pa. In 1997, the trust applied to the county zoning board for a special exception allowing it to extract minerals from the property. The board held a public hearing. The trust's representatives and several adjoining landowners, including the Romesburgs and the Rileys (neighbors), were at the hearing. The board approved the trust's request with certain conditions. It sent a letter to the trust's representative stating the trust's special exception was con- ditionally approved and it had 30 days to appeal to court. The letter, however, failed to identify the conditions the board placed on the trust's request and didn't include a copy of the board's written decision or a date by which the decision would be prepared. The trust's attorney immediately requested a copy