Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/08/1999

Home

Page 4 -- October 10, 1999 Z.B. The ordinance didn't violate Norman's free speech rights. Although Norman may have intended to use her yard to send a public message about reclaiming her neighborhood, protecting the environment, and the state of today's society, there was little likelihood that her message would be understood by those who saw 3- to 4-foot-high seed rye growing in her front yard. Her garden didn't have enough "communicative elements" to be protected by the First Amendment. Citation: City of Montgomery v. Norman, Court [~f Criminal Appeals o.f . Alabama, No. CR-98-0837 (1999). see also: Commonwealth v. Siemet, 686 A.2d 899 (1996). Frontage -- Village denies subdivision request based on 5-foot frontage deficiency NEW YORK (9/13/99) -- Bucldey bought a residential lot in Amityville, plan- ning to build one house on it. He later decided to subdivide the property so he could build two houses, one for himself and one for his mother-in-law. Buckley applied to the planning board for subdivision approval. He pro- posed subdividing the property into two lots, each of which would exceed the village's minimum lot size. Neighbors opposed Buckley's request, expressing concerns about congestion and preserving the character of the neighborhood. Buckley showed that 75 percent of the neighboring parcels were smaller than the lots he proposed and that the houses he proposed were comparable in style to those in the neighborhood. The planning board denied Buckley's request because each of the proposed lots had only 70 feet of frontage and the. village had a 75-foot frontage requirement. Bucktey applied to the zoning board for a variance to reduce the frontage requirements of the lots to 70 feet. He showed each of the lots would be 25 percent larger than that required by the zoning ordinance and that each lot would be larger than most of the neighboring parcels. He also showed the frontage on the vast majority of the lots in the neighborhood was less than 70 feet. Neighbors opposed the variance for the same reasons offered at the plan- ning board. The zoning board denied the variance, finding it would directly conflict with the village's goal in upzoning the district "because it was too congested and larger lots were necessary." Buckley appealed to court. The court annulled the decisions of both the planning and the zoning boards. The village appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. Buckley could subdivide his property. The factors the planning board had to consider included road congestion, overcrowding, compatibility, and preservation of property values. Buckley