Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/05/1998

Home

Page 8 April 10, 1998 Z.B. on Mayfield Lane. The Harrells sued Little Pup. They asked the court to order Little Pup to comply with the board's condition. The court found it couldn't restrict Little Pup's access to its new subdivision development by a public, county-maintained road like Mayfield Lane. The court also found that the county had represented to Little Pup that BKA road would be paved as soon as possible, so the court hllowed Little. Pup to continue using the temporary entrance on Mayfield Lane until BKA Road was paved. The Harrells appealed to the Supreme Court of Georgia. DECISION: Reversed. The court should have enforced the condition against Little Pup. When the board rezoned Little Pup's property, the ordinance clearly stated the board's intent to restrict access of any kind to BKA Road. Nothing showed the rezoning condition would take effect only after the road was paved. Little Pup couldn't rely on any representations that BKA Road would be paved as soon as possible -- even if the board had made such a promise, it couldn't interfere with the county's governmental zoning function. Zoning Change: Neighbor says developer failed to file proper map with zoning-change application Olsen v. City of Torrington Planning and Zoning Commission, Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Litchfield, No. CV 970075029 (1998) Konover Development Corporation wanted to change the zoning designa- tion of property in the city of Torrington, Conn., from residential to local business. When.it filed its application, it included a map of the property. The map didn't indicate which lots would be changed or where their boundaries lay. The city published notice of the application, stating copies of the application and map were on file at the planning and zoning department. After a public hearing, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the zoning change. Olsen, who lived within 100 feet of the developer's property, asked a court to review the commission's decision. She said the Commission shouldn't have approved the zoning change because the developer failed to file an appropriate map with its application. DECISION: Zoning change vacated. The commission improperly approved the developer's zoning-change application. State law required that applicants include with their applications copies of maps indicating the proposed zoning changes. The purpose of this require- ment was to alert members of the public to changes that could affect their property. Because the developer failed to file a map that showed which lots the pi oposed change would affect, the commission should not have considered its application. see also: Bombero v. Planning and Zoning Commission, 550 A.2d 1098 (1988).