Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/04/1995

Home

Page 6 m March 15, 1995 Z.B. : If a law. is. amended while an appeal is pending, the court should apply the law in effect when the appeal is decided. .. The town amended its code to make special use standards relevant to spe- cial approval applications while Baldassare's appeal was pending. Therefore, the lower court should have found that the planning board correctly used the special use standards, and should have dismissed Baldassare's appeal. Matter of Dutton v. Town of Canaan, 605 N.Y.S. 2d 137. Zoning Conditions -- After Court Orders County to Rezone, May County Impose Conditions on Further Development? .. Alexander v. DeKalb County, 444 S.E.2d 743 (Georgia) 1994 Alexander owned 22 acres of land in DeKalb County, Ga., in an area zoned for 18 apartment units per acre. The Rock Springs Apartments, with 8 Units per acre, were already located on the property..Alexander petitioned the county to rezone the property for 30 apartment units per acre. The county denied his petition. Alexander appealed. The trial court declared the county's decision uncon- stitutional and ordered the county .to rezone the property. .. Based on the recommendation of a planner's report concerning the adverse effects of 30 apartment units per acre, the county rezoned the property to allow · 30 apartment units per acre, but limited development to 22 apartment units per acre. Additional conditions prohibited the county from granting parking and administrative variances. Alexander asked the trial court to hold the county in contempt for failing to comply with the 'court's order. Alexander also challenged the new zoning classification's constitutionality. .The trial court ruled that the county had rezoned in compliance. With the order, and that the conditions imposed were reasonable. Alexander appealed. DECISION: Affirmed, but returned to trial court. The county was not in contempt because it complied with the trial court's rezoning order. After receiving evidence of an adverse impact on the community if the. property were developed at 30 units per acre, and the planner's report recom- mending a maximum density of 22 units per acre, the county rezoned the prop- erty accordingly.: The county's new zoning classification with conditions limiting develop- ment to 22 units was also constitutional because it was reasonable. The two conditions prohibiting variances, however, were invalid because they sought to limit the authority of future legislative bodies, to regulate the property. The trial court was ordered to remove those two conditions. Mobile Home w Developer Thinks Ordinance Won't Let It Build Park Hornstein Enterprises Inc. v. Board of S..upervisors of Fo. rks Tow~zship, 644 A.2d 284 (Pennsylvania) 1994 Hornstein Enterprises Inc. wanted to develop a. 430-unit mobile home park