Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/07/1996

Home

Page ~- April 15, 1996 Z.B. Environmental Issues M Board Cites Environmental Concerns in Denial of B~lder's Petition Fawn Builders Inc. v. Planning Board of the Town of Lewisboro, 636 N.Y.S. 2d 873 (New York) J996 Fawn Builders Inc. owned a 6.7-acre parcel in the town of Lewisboro, N.Y. The lot was part of a 23-1ot subdivision, and already had a house on it. Fawn !applied to the town Planning Board for permission to divide the parcel in tw6 so it could build another single-family house on the land. B{cause the property had wetlands on it, the board declared it environ- mentally significant under state law. After Fawn submitted a draft environ- mental impact study, the board held public hearings for the proposed subdivision. The board reviewed Fawn's final environmental impact study, then denied the al~plication. It gave 26 detailed reasons for the denial, most of which expres_sed concerns with the proposal's potential effect on the environmen- tally sensitive wetlands area on and near the property. Fa'Wn asked a court to review-the decision, and the court dismissed the case. Fawn appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. The trial court properly dismissed Fawn's lawsuit. Although Fawn took steps to mitigate the proposed lot's problems, the board still had valid con- cerns ,~bout the plan's potential' environmental effect. The' board's denial was not arbitrary or irrational. Matter of Save 'the Pine Bush v. Planning Board of Town of GuiIderland, 629 N2Y. S. 2d J24. Taking -- Owner Wants Compensation for Effects of Drainage Ditch on Access TaUb v. City of Deer Park, 912 S.W. 2d 395 (Texas) 1995 TaUb owned undeveloped property in the city of Deer Park,. Texas. The property's northern pa~t was zoned industrial and the southern part single- familyi residential. The city filed condemnation proceedings for street and drainage improvements, :which included a drainage ditch that divided the property's northern and southern parts. TaU:b sued the city, claiming its application of the zoning ordinance to his land w~as unconstitutional. ThO trial court heard Taub's and the city's cases together. Taub's appraiser testifie~ that although the remainder's per-acre price did not change after the taking,i the loss of access between the two parcels caused Taub damage. He estimated Taub's damages as $105,000, which was what it would cost to build a bridge over the ditch. The city's appraiser reviewed Taub's appraiser's report, and testified that the remainder's per-acre value actually increased after the taking.~.The city appraiser said the separation of the two parcels did not nega- tively affect either parcel ~ both still had road access. In fact, he claimed it