Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/07/1996

Home

Page 4!-- April 15, 1996 Z.B. ThC county asked the court for partial judgment without a trial. The county said beCause the bank still had access to one traffic lane, it was not entitled to compe/asation for losing access to the other. Th~ court granted the county's request. In its ruling, the court said the bank c~uld not use evidence about the diminished access to prove its sever- ance d~mages claim. Tho bank appealed. DECISION: Affirmed, in favor of the county. Th~ lower court properly granted the county judgment without a trial. The ba~k was not entitled to independent damages for the loss of southbound access, i Nor could the bank use evidence about diminished accessibility to claim a idecrease in fair market value such evidence would confuse the jury. Th~ bank was not entitled to independent damages for loss of southbound traffic. ~t still had reasonable access to one direction of traffic, so it was not denied gccess to the public highway. Th* lower court properly found the bank could not use evidence of dimin- ishedr access to prove severance damages. Although diminished access was relevant to any change in fair market value, evidence of it could have con- fused the jury. Even if the court told the jury diminished accessibility was not compensable, hearing evidence about accessibility m!ght lead the jury to believe it was. Subdivision -- Neighbors Say Resubdivision Won't Fit Neighborhood's 'Look and Feel' Lee ~v. Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission, 6681A.2d 980 (Maryland) 1995 Po~ell unsuccessfully sought to resubdivide into seven lots a two-lot, 6.85- acre tra~t in Montgomery County, Md. The Montgomery County Planning Board Of the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission de- nied the*. application because the "panhandle" lots that would result "wouldn't be in k4eping with the character of the neighborhood." It also found the lots would ~e much smaller than others. About three years later, Powell filed a revised plan to create six lots. One would be accessed by an existing road; the rest through a new cul-de-sac. Three had frontage on existing streets; the other three would front only on the cul-de-Sac. Two were aligned with existing streets; the Other four were at odd angles: One was rectangular, three were wedge shaped, and two were irregu- larly shaped. Three lots ranged between 41,000 and 42,000 square feet; the other three were between 50,000 and 54,400 square feet. Under the County Code, the board had to compare the proposal with other lots in the neighborhood. The code stated the proposed lots "shall be of the same ch!aracter as to street frontage, alignment, size, shape, width, area and suitability for residential use" as the rest of the neighborhood. The board designated a surrounding 14-lot neighborhood that had no cul-de-sacs. All 14 lots fronted on existing streets, and were parallel to both each other and