Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/01/2004

Home

92 Page 8 -- February. 25, 2004 DECISION: Affirmed. It was clear Tinsman intended to avoid the ordinance. Tinsman was in the real estate development business, and he admitted at a board meeting he made at least some of the transfers intending to avoid the ordinance. The town planner testified the property contained extensive areas of poorly drained soils, and subdivision approval would be difficult to secure. Namsnit was wholly owned and controlled by Tinsman, numerous trans- fers. without consideration took place between Namsnit and Tinsman, and the sequence of conveyances allowed Tinsman to sell property to Cloutier Con- struction without creating a subdivision. Considering all of the. above, it was clear Tinsman intended to avoid' the regulatory consequences of creating a subdivision. Citation: Tinsma~ v. Tow~ of Falmouth, Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, No. Cum-03-203 (2004). see also: Conservation Law Foundation v. Linco[nville, 786 A.2d 6t6 (200i). see also: State v. Mc£aughlin, 794 A.2d 69 (2002). Rezoning -- Numerous requests struck' down by voter referenda Landowner claims voters' decisions ha~e no rational basis OHIO (01/16/04) -- Trafalgar Corporation owned a 50-acre tract of undevel- oped land. It created a prelim/nary development plan for the tract consisting of a subdivision with 53 lots. However, the zoning code required government approval for residential building lots with road frontage of less than 125 feet. In 1995, 1997, and 1999, Trafalgar requested zoning changes and submitted new development plans for the tract of land. Each time, the county zoning com- mission approved the requested change. However, each approval was later struck down by voters challenging the zoning change through a county referendum. Trafalgar sued, and the court ruled in favor of the county. TraI'aigar appealed, arguing the current zoning was unconstitutional be- cause it was arbitrary and unreasonable and because no rational basis existed for refusal of the zoning change. DECISION: Affirmed. The denial of the rezoning was based on rational concerns. Trafalgar introduced no evidence to substantiate a claim the voters acted in an unreasonable or arbitrary manner or that the referenda were otherwise inappropriate or illegal. The reason for the referenda disapproving rezoning was based on the vot- ers' concerns for the preservation of f~rnland in the historically rural area and for the need to reduce stress upon the local resources. Consequently, there was no evidence indicating the denial' of the rezoning was arbitrary or irrational. CitatioJw Trafalgar Corporation ~. Miami Co~.~n~. Board of County Commi~'- sionerz', Cou;? of Appeuls of Ohio, 2~d App. Dist., Miami CounU, No. 2002- CA-20 (2004). see aL"o.' S~.~re v. Springbot'o, 792 N.E. gd 721 (2003).