Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/06/1996

Home

"long-range policy guide for development of the [municipality] as a whole," and all zoning regulations and decisions would have to comply with it. The borough told its Planning Commission to develop separate compre- hensive plans for certain communities within it, including the Chase area. The commission formed a citizens' advisory committee to help develop the Chase Comprehensive Plan. One of the advisory committee's recommenda- tions .was to discourage road construction in Chase, so area residents could preserve their "bush lifestyle." The commission thought otherwise, and the ordinance it enacted to establish the plan included the goal of approving roads on existing rights of way. P~ice, an advisory committee member, got 20 people in the Chase area to sign an application for a referendum petition regarding the plan. A state statute limited who could sign referendum petitions that affected only part of a muni- cipality to those living in that area. In the proposed referendum, only Chase residents would vote. The borough clerk rejected the application. She said it was invalid because it should have been held borough-wide, rather than only in Chase. Price sued the borough clerk. The court granted the clerk judgment without a trial, finding state planning laws preempted Price's right to a referendum. Price appealed. DECISION: Affirmed, but for different reasons. The lower court properly upheld the clerk's decision, but for the wrong reason. The referendum had to be open to all borough voters, not just Chase-area residents. The state statute limited who could sign the referendum petition, but not who could vote. Lazy Mountain Land Club v. Matanuska-Susitna, 904 P2d 373 (2995). South Anchorage Concerned Coalition Inc. v. Coffey, 862 t~.2d 2 68 (2993). Signs: Village calls painted boulder a sign Incorporated Village of Old Field v. Hickey, 639 N.Y.S. 2d 480 (New York) 2996 The Hickeys owned 10 acres in the village of Old Field, on Long Island's north shore. At the edge of the beach was an enormous boulder. On the side facing the water, the Hickeys painted a 20-foot-high green shamrock with the letter H in it. They also painted their name in letters 6 feet high. The village told the Hickeys their painting violated the zoning code's size requirements for construction of signs. The code defined a "sign" as a structure that displayed words, Ietters or pictures "in the nature of an announcement, direction or advertisement." It defined "structure" as "[a]nything constructed or erected which requires location on or in the ground or which is attached to something located on or in the ground" other than fences less than 5 feet high. In response to the village's notice, the Hickeys applied for a variance. The village's Zoning Board of Appeals denied it, saying "whether the painting is