Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/06/1998

Home

Page 6 -- December 10, 1997 Z.B. could then refuse to endorse his plan. According Io the court, the board should have endorsed Bisson's application during either of the two hearings it held before the ordinance was amended. The board appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. The planning board couldn't defer acting on Bisson's application until after the zoning ordinance was amended. Bisson's application didn't require subdivision approval. When Bisson applied for the board's endorsement, his plan didn't show a subdivision. Each of his proposed lots had at least 100 feet of frontage and was big enough to form a perfect square. The board never claimed it thought the plan revealed a subdivision or needed time to investigate the issue. As the trial court found, the ordinance stated that if the board found a plan did not require subdivision approval, it had to immediately endorse the plan. The board's claim that it had 21 days to act on the plan regardless of when it found subdivision approval wasn't needed was wrong. Allowing the 21 days would nullify the requirement that once the board found the plan showed no subdivision, it must render its endorsement "forthwith" and not "withhold" the endorsement. It didn't matter that Bisson tried to "beat the clock" by submitting his plan when he did. Bisson's motivati'on was irrelevant. If his plan showed the necessary frontage, the planning board's endorsement was required. see also: Cricones v. PJanning Board of Dracut, 654 N.E. 2d 1204 (1995). see also: Per~ v. Planning Board of Nantucket, 444 N.E. 2d 389 (1983). Conditional Use -- Neighbors say landowners used wrong procedure to divide property Comer v. County of Twin Falls, 942 P. 2d 557 (Idaho) 1997 The Gerratts bought property zoned agricultural in the county of Twin Falls, Idaho. The property originally had been part of a 40-acre parcel. Sometime before 1979, the parcel had been divided into eight smaller lots. The Gerratts bought three lots. Other families, including the Comers, bought the five other lots. The Gerratts wanted to divide each of their three lots in half and build houses on them. For each lot, they filed with the county Planning and Zoning Commission a "conditional use/land division" application. The Comers and other neighbors challenged the applications, citing possible problems with sewage and irrigation. The commission denied the applications. The Gerratts appealed to the county board of commissioners. At a hearing the neighbors attended, the board postponed d. ciding on the Gerratts' applications until it could listen to a tape of the commission proceedings. The board set a date and time for a new hearing but did not send the neighbors written notice of the planned second hearing. Between the first and second hearings, board members visited the Gerratts' property m something the commission hadn't done. At the second hearing, :3"7