Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/04/1997

Home

Z.B. January 1997 m Page 7 into play. The commission then had to comply with the schematic the commissioners approved. The commissioners' decision to approve a PUD plan was legislative, similar to amending zoning regulations. Legislative decisions could not be reviewed in court. Because the procedure was legislative, a trial-type hearing was not required. see also: Jurkiewicz v. Butler Ct)?. Bd. of Elections, 620 N. E. 2d 146 (1993). see also: Peachtree Development Co. v. Paul, 423 N.E.2d 1087 (1981). Site Plan Approval A Hospital says village's failure to act is automatic approval Citation: Nyack Hospital v. Village of Nyack Planning Board, 647 N.Y.S. 2d 799 (New York) 1996 Nyack (N.Y.) Hospital submitted a site-plan application to the village planning board which, according to the hospital, gave its preliminary approval. The hospital then asked the board for final approval. According to the hospital, the board did not make a decision within 62 days, as required by the state Village Law. The hospital asked a court to declare that the board had automatically approved the plan by default, because it had not acted within the time required. The court refused to declare the plan automatically approved. The hospital appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. The hospital's site plan was not automatically approved. The state laws applicable to towns and villages provided for default approval of subdivision applications. However, the sections of the laws that concerned site plan approval did not include default-approval provisions. Furthermore, the state Legislature had amended the town and village laws in 1994 and left the default subdivision approval provisions in place while not adding default site-plan approval provisions. If the village failed to act on the hospital's application within the time set by the Village Law, then the hospital could sue to compel it to make a decision. Fees -- Developer says fee in lieu of dedication violates state law Vintage Construction Co. Inc. v. City of Bothell, 922 P. 2d 828 (Washingto~O 1996 A developer wanted to build a 142-home, 80-acre subdivision to be called Shawna Downs just outside the city of Bothell, Wash. The city annexed the property and let the developer connect to its sewer system. The owner proposed that part of the property be dedicated as open space and other parts be used for horse trails. The city council adopted a city park board finding that the proposed horse trails were a "partial substitute" for the neighborhood park space the development would require. The city's subdivision code required developers to dedicate 5 percent of