Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/01/1995

Home

Page 4 -- July 1995 Z.B. , Also, the evidence showed that the government intended to sell the prop- erty as a residence N its advertisement said the property had a residential build- ing that was formerly used as a restaurant. Walter v. Harris, 558 N.Y.&2d 266. Matter of Sun Oil Co. of Pennsylvania v. Board of Zoning AlgpeaIs of Town of Harrison, 408 N.Y.S.2d 502. Density -- Developer Wants to Build Homes Within Airport Noise Zone Maryland Aviation Administration v. Newsome, 652 A.2d !16 (Maryland) 1995 For the property surrounding the Baltimore-Washington International Airport, the Maryland General Assembly enacted the Environmental Noise Act of 1974, which put on top of county zoning additional regulations to protect residents from excessive noise. It identified high noise areas (measured by actual sound levels and taking into consideration projected future flight patterns), in which new residential construction was prohibited without a variance. The Act also authorized the Maryland Aviation Administration to administer noise zone regulations for state-owned airports. In 1989, Newsome bought land near the airport in Howard County, Md. The property lay in a noise zone. About six acres of the property were zoned residential and had 27 unimproved residential lots shown on a recorded subdi- vision plat. If that land were used for residential purposes, it would become an "impacted land use area" (an area within a noise zone that had an actual noise level higher than the allowable limit). Newsome wanted to build 27 homes on the residential property (one per platted lot). As required for new construction on land in a noise zone, Newsome applied to the administration for a permit. The administration was not allowed to grant permits if the proposed action would create an impacted land use, so the administration denied the permit. The Department of Transportation's Board of Airport Zoning Appeals had the power to grant variances from the administration's decisions, so Newsome applied to it for a variance. The board denied the variance, finding 68 addi- tional people would live in the noise zone and be exposed to a prohibited level of noise pollution. Newsome asked a court to review the board's decision, claiming an antici- pated increase in population density could not be the basis for denying a vari- ance. The court reversed the board's decision and directed it to grant the vari- ance. The administration appealed, but the appeals court affirmed. The administration appealed again. DECISION: Reversed and returned to the lower court. The law regulating noise zones focused on the effect of excessive noise on people. When deciding whether to grant a variance, the board could consider the number of people who would be exposed to a prohibited level of noise