Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/07/1995

Home

72-. Page 4 -- February 1995 z.g. DECISION: Affirmed. The ordinance's plain language stated that uses other than those specifi- cally listed could be allowed in a resort zone. The term "not cited" was meant to broaden the types of permitted uses beyond those specifically listed in the ordinance as examples. It did not restrict the laundry list of permissible uses, contrary to Seawall's argument. The planning department director had testified that go-carts were a general amusement based on the Standards of Industrial Classifications Manual, which listed them as such. Since the director was charged with enforcing the ordi- nance, his interpretation of it carried great weight. Southwest Airlh~es Co. v. Bullock, 784 S. W. 2d 563 (1994). Zoning Change -- Residents Challenge Golf Club's Plans to Subdivide Land After Agreeing to Compromise Kirkland v. J:'lam~i~g Commissio~ of the. City of Mo~tgomery, 636 So.2d 687 (Alabama) 1994 The Standard Club was a golf club in the city of Montgomery, Ala. It wanted to develop 14 acres of its land that was not part of the golf course. To do this, the land had to be rezoned from institutional to residential, so the club asked the city Planning Commission to rezone the property. The planning commis- sion denied the application, but the city council overruled that decision and rezoned the land. When the club applied for final plat approval, it asked for a through street connecting two existing streets. At a commission meeting, neighboring resi- dents expressed concern about possible increases in traffic the through street might Cause. The commission's chairman suggested that the club consider sub- stituting a dead-end street with a cul-de-sac. The commission then voted to delay a decision on the request. While awaiting the next commission meeting, the club met with the neigh- bors and agreed to a compromise amended plat. The new plat eliminated the through street and substituted a 2,000-feet-long cul-de-sac. The commission's rules and regulations stated that cul-de-sac streets could not be longer than 600 feet. After sending notice to the neighbors, the commission held another hear-. lng. The club presented its amended plat, which city engineers and the club's. engineer had approved. None of the neighbors who were present 6bjected to the plat. In fact, one neighbor said he spoke for a majority of the neighboring residents in supporting the amended plan and asking for the commission's ap- proval. The commission approved the amended plat unanimously. A group of residents sued the comm!ssion, claiming it was wrong to allow a dead-end street longer than 600 feet without granting a variance or making any findings to support a variance. The court upheld the commission's decision, and the residents appealed. DECISION: Affirmed, in favor of the commission.