Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/01/1999

Home

z.g. May 10, 1999 . Page 5 The zoning ordinance didn't violate Ultimate's equal protection rights. Although the ordinance produced some counterintuitive results by allowing other businesses requiring heavy motor vehicle traffic and high noise levels, the ordinance allowed the town to grant or deny special use permits on a case- by-case basis. In this case, the board's interest in limiting noise levels was rationally related to its denial of Ultimate's special use permit. Citation: Ultimate Custom Cycles Inc. v. Town of Greenburgh, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, No. 98 Civ. 5914 (1999). see also: Zahra v. Town of Southold, 48 E3d 674 (1995). Development -- Developer claims town required street improvements despite lack of impact WASHINGTON (3/12/99) -- Benchmark Land Company wanted to develop a residential subdivision in Battle Ground, Wash. Benchmark's initial plan inc!uded improvements to a street bordering the proposed subdivision, because the citY required such improvements on access streets fronting all subdivisions. The preliminary plat included access to that street, but the city engineer later suggested that Benchmark eliminate that ac- cess point. Benchmark revised the plat to eliminate the access area but didn't eliminate the proposed street improvements. The commission approved the preliminary plat with conditions. While street improvements were discussed at the meeting, none of the conditions related to the street improvements. A few months later, Benchmark informed the city it wouldn't make the street improvements because the improvements were ',left over" from the origi- nal plat that showed an entrance onto that street. The following year, the city adopted findings of fact and conclusions of law in which it accepted Benchmark's proposal with the street improvements. Benchmark appealed to court. The court found the city couldn't approve the proposal showing the street improvements after Benchmark had withdrawn that proposal. It ordered the city to consider whether the proposed develop- ment would increase traffic enough to warrant requiring the road improvements. Both the city's and Benchmark's studies showed the subdivision wouldn't substantially increase traffic in the area. The city's study, however, concluded the street improvements should be made because the street didn't meet safety standards. The city concluded Benchmark's plan had to include the street im- provements, and Benchmark again appealed to court. The court reversed the city's decision. It found the city failed to show a substantial connection between the proposed subdivision's traffic impact and the need for street improvements. The city appealed, claiming Benchmark orally agreed to make the improve- ments in exchange for the city's approval of the plat. The city also argued it