Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/04/1997

Home

Page 6- January 1997 Z.B. The lower court properly ruled festivals and shows were a nonconforming use. Enough evidence (one witness's'testimony) showed similar activities took place before the zoning ordinance was enacted. The lower court also properly ruled the park was not entitled to a general certificate of nonconforming use. The park owners' request was too broad. A general certificate would allow an almost infinite variety of activities substantially different from those that historically took place at the park. see also: Kisil v. Sa~duslg; 465 N.E. 2d 848 (1984). Editor's note: Though decided in late 1995, this case ',,as not published until Iate 1996, when the state Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal. Site Plan Approval -- Resident group calls PUD approval process improper Sheridan7 Pla/mi~Tg Associatio~7 v. Board of Sherida~ Country Commissio/Ters, 924 ~. 2d 988 (Wyomi~g) J 996 The developer of a subdivision in Sheridan, Wyo., asked for a variance for a new subdivision. The Sheridan County Planned Unit Development Resolution controlled the PUD proposal process. The resolution stated the Board of County Commissioners had to hold a public hearing on a proposed plan and approve the schematic plan for any PUD. Once a final PUD plan was submitted to the planning and zoning commission, the commission was to "approve or disapprove" the plan within 30 days. The commission could approve a final plan only if the plan were in substantial compliance with the schematic the commissioners approved. The Board of County Commissioners held hearings and approved the proposal as a planned unit development. After more hearings, the county planning and zoning commission unanimously recommended approval of a final plan for the PUD. The commission scheduled more hearings and notified all adjacent property owners. Following the hearings, the commission approved the plan with conditions. A group of residents calling themselves the Sheridan Planning Association challenged the commissioners' approval in court. They argued the PUD resolution was invalid because it gave to the planning and zoning commission final authority to approve or disapprove PUD proposals, when only the commissioners had that power. They also said the commissioners should have held a trial-type hearing on whether to approve the plan. DECISION: Commissioners' decision affirmed. The PUD resolution did not improperly delegate the commissioners' authority. A trial-type hearing was not required for PUD approval. The resolution did not improperly give away the commissioners' authority to regulate land use. It ensured the planning and zoning commission acted consistently with the will of the commissioners, who retained executive control of the PUD process. Only after the commissioners held a hearing and approved a schematic plan did the planning and zoning commission's approval come I I I I I I I .I! I I I I ! I I