Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/06/1997

Home

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,I Z.B. April 25, 1997 Page 3 should not have denied Schlehuser's request for a review of the board's decision. Since no transcript of the earlier proceedings was available, it was impossible to decide whether the board exceeded its authority. Therefore, the case had to be returned to the lower court so it could review the board's decision, and determine if the conditions attached to the variances were reasonable; if Schlehuser failed to comply with those conditions; and if the board otherwise followed proper procedures. Kethman v. Oceola Township, 276 N. W. 2d 529 (1979). Easley v. Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals of Marion County, 317 V.E.2d ( 974). Appeal -- Residents claim new law should be applied retroactively to their appeal Holland v. Woodhaven Building and Development Inc., 687 A.2d 699 (Maryland) ~ 996 In 1994, the Hampstead (Md.) Planning and Zoning Commission granted Woodhaven Building and Development Inc. final approval for a 220-unit, residential subdivision. A month later, four residents appealed the commission's subdivision approval to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Three of the residents claimed to be nearby property owners. The fourth resident said he had a child in the school district, and feared the new subdivision would cause overcrowding in the school. The fourth resident also said the subdivision would cause congestion on the roads he used, and the water supply he used would be burdened. The three nearby residents did not testify before the board, provide proof of property ownership, establish the proximity of their homes on a map or fall within the county's list of adjoining property owners. The board rejected the residents' claims, saying the residents were not aggrieved parties. Under the current town code, individuals or groups were not eligible to appeal zoning decisions unless they could prove they were affected more adversely than the general public. The four residents, along with 80 additional town residents, appealed the board's decision to the court. Before the court decided the case, the town approved an ordinance that repealed the section of the code dealing with aggrieved parties, and allowed any taxpayer to appeal zoning decisions to the board. The new ordinance didn't contain any provisions dealing with appeals existing before it went into effect. The court said the new ordinance was not valid because it conflicted with state law. It also did not consider the residents to be aggrieved parties under the original code. The residents appealed, arguing they were entitled to appeal the zoning decision. They also said the new ordinance should be applied retroactively to their case, because the lower court didn't decide the case until after the ordinance went into effect. Woodhaven argued the ordinance couldn't be applied