Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/02/1998

Home

Z.B. October 10, 1998 - Page 7 water and sewer systems couldn't support residential development on the prop- erty. The planning commission recommended that the town commissioners deny the developer's request. The town commissioners held a public hearing, at wh~ich the developer and · the planning commission presented their proposed definitions of the neighbor- hood. The developer also presented the testimony of land planners, traffic engineers, geologists, fiscal analysts, realtors, and attorneys to identify the neigh- borhood and to address concerns about the adequacy of water, sewer, traffic, and schools. The commissioners denied the developer's request based on inadequate public facilities and because the developer didn't prove the neighborhood had changed. The commissioners adopted a definition of "neighborhood" different than both the develoPer's and the planning commission's, finding the developer's proposal -- at 10 times the size of the property in question -- was too expan- sive. The commissioners rejected the planning commission's proposed neighbor- hood because it didn't recognize physical barriers such as streets, roads, or streams asforming the neighborhood's boundaries. The commissioners ~dentified a neigh- borhood that included all adjoining and adjacent properties and subdivisions, and that was bounded by long-established state, county, and municipal roads. The developer appealed to court, and the court found the commissioners' proposed neighborhood was arbitrary. The court returned the matter to the eom- 'missioners, stating the court needed to know the nature of the neighborhood before it could address whether the commissioners properly refused to rezone the property based on inadequate water, sewer, and school systems. The town commissioners appealed. DECISION: Reversed, and returned to the trial court. The trial court had to consider-- using the town commissioners' definition of "neighborhood - Whether the commissioners properly found the public facilities were inadequate. Though the developer presented detailed maps, drawings, and photographs, the town commissioners were entitled to evaluate the information in light of their extensive local knowledge.and could delineate the neighborhood as they saw fit. The commissioners rejected the developer's proposed neighborhood because it didn't reflect the immediate area; the developer excluded adjacent parcels and included instead parcels that were some distance away. The trial court seemed to believe the town commissioners had to choose either the developer's definition or the planning commission's, but this wasn't true. Binding the commissioners to either definition didn't allow them to use their extensive local knowledge. When an owner presented one definition of the neighbored and a town zoning commission presented another, there was an honest dispute as to what comprised the neighborhood, and the town's choice to accept one definition instead of the other couldn't be questioned. see also: 2°attey v. Board of County Commissioners, 327A.2d 142 (1974).