Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/04/1998

Home

Page 6--June 25, 1998 z.g. waive strict compliance with its rules only when it was in the public interest and not inconsistent with the subdivision control law. Rattner appealed to court, apparently arguing the board shouldn't have approved the subdivision without considering the impact it would have on the southwest road. Rattner submitted evidence that showed the southwest road would be used to access the subdivision. The developers had posted signs to their property along the southwest road, their family had paid for the maintenance of the southwest road, and their mailbox was located at the beginning of the road. Rattner also produced evidence that the resulting traffic increase would inter- fere with his property rights. An engineer testified that traffic to and from the subdivision would further deteriorate the dirt road and would likely cause acci- dents and delay emergency vehicles. The court awarded the developers judgment without a trial, finding that although Rattner proved the southwest road would be used to access the developers' land, the board had no authority to consider roads outside the proposed subdivision when deciding whether to approve the subdivision. Rattner appealed. DECISION: Reversed, and returned to the trial court. Rattner proved that factual questions existed about whether the board properly waived strict compliance with its road-improvement regulations. The board had a duty to evaluate the adequacy of the roads that would be used to access the subdivision, and Rattner proved the southwest road would be used to access the developers' subdivision but wasn't adequate for the in- creased traffic. Although the planning board could waive strict compliance with road- improvement regulations, it could do so only when a waiver wouldn't contradict the subdivision control law. The state subdivision statute, however, required a subdivision applicant to prove the access roads were adequate to allow for emergency medical, fire, and police protection, as well as safe travel for the projected volume of traffic. see also: Wheattey v. Planning Board of Hingham, 388 N.E. 2d 315 (1979). Agricultural Use-- Town prohibits keeping of fowl or swine for commercial purposes Citation: Phillips v. Town of Oak Grove, Supreme Court of Arkansas, No. 97-898 (1998) The town of Oak Grove, Ark., adopted an ordinance that prohibited raising or keeping fowl or swine for commercial purposes. It defined "fowl" to in- clude chickens, turkeys, ducks, geese, quail, and all other domestic or wild birds of the zoological class "Aves." The town passed the ordinance in response to concerns relating to nearby commercial fowl and hog operations. The Phillipses, who lived in Oak Grove, began breeding emus for sale. ! !