Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/06/1997

Home

Page 4 -- April 25, 1997 z.go retroactively. DECISION: Affirmed. The residents were not eligible to appeal the subdivision approval, and the new ordinance couldn't be applied retroactively to allow them to do so. Under the original town code, aggrieved status applied only to residents who proved they would experience more adverse effects than the general public. The residents who opposed the subdivision plan did not do this. The three "nearby" residents did not present evidence of their proximity to the would-be subdivision, or even that they owned property near the subdivision. As for the fourth resident who complained about overcrowded schools and roads and overburdened water supplies, he didn't show how these problems were specific to him; these were issues the general public, not just the individual resident, would confront. The new ordinance that would have allowed the residents, as taxpayers, to appeal the board's decision couldn't be applied retroactively. It didn't include anything about retroactivity, so the residents had to abide by the original code -- the law that existed when they appealed. Prince George's County v. Sunrise Development Limited Partnershi2v, 623 A.2d J296 (1993). Arundel Corp. v. County Commissioners, 594 A.2d 95 (1991). Development-- Developer says referendum vote can't reverse city council's approval of plan Chandis Securities Co. v. City of Dana Point, 60 Cal. R]gtr. 2d 481 (California) 1996 In Dana Point, Calif., Chandis Securities Co. and others owned approximately 120 acres of undeveloped land known as the Headlands. Before Dana Point was incorporated in 1989, the owners developed a plan for the land~ designat- ing sections for recreation, open space, commercial activity and hotel use. When Dana Point became incorporated, it adopted a general plan for the Headlands, designating it as a specific plan area, and setting guidelines for the property's uses. In this plan, Headlands could have between 261 and 522 residential dwellings and one hotel, and its development had to allow for more than 61 acres of open space. The owners also had to submit a specific plan for the Headlands before it developed the property. The owners submitted a specific plan three years later. After several public hearings and revisions, the city council approved a plan for a maximum of 370 residential units, one hotel and 66.3 acres for recreation or open space. In addition, the council approved an amendment to modify the general plan's recreation/open space/conservation stipulation. For enactment, the site's specific ptan and the general plan amendment had to be approved by referendum. When the vote was held, the voters rejected both proposals, blocking development on the specific plan. Chandis and the other owners sued the city and the city council, asking the I I I i I ! I ! I I I I I I I i I I I