Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/06/2004

Home

Page 6 -- March 25, 2004 DECISION: Affirmed. The town did not engage in illegal spot zoning. The map amendment placed the property within the same zoning district as all of the land surrounding it. Consequently, there was no way the map amendment could violate the uniformity required in town zoning maps. The map amendment allowed the orderly development of the property for uses compatible with the surrounding commercial area. By triggering the de- velopment covenant, the map amendment furnished and funded needed traffic mitigation measures along the congested neighboring highway corridor and provided funds for the town's acquisition of open space. The proposed development of the property for hotel, office, and retail uses pursuant to the map amendment would generate approximately $1.7 million in annual tax revenues, and create up to 1,500 jobs. While reasonable minds could differ, it could not be said the map amendment's benefits and projects it authorized and regulated were substan- tially urn'elated to the public health, safety, or general welfare, or that the rea- sonableness of the amendment was not fairly debatable. Consequently, the enactment of the map amendment constituted a valid exercise of the town's zoning power. see also: Nickerson v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Raynham, 76] ~V.£.2d 544 (2002). see also: McLean Hospital Corp. v. Belmont, 778 N.£.2d 1016 (2002.). 'Duress -- Township supervisor shows up at zoning board hearings Argues against varia;zces, has power of appointment over the board Circttion: Department of Transportation v. Township of Kochville, Court of Appeals of Michigan, No. 240685 (2004) MICH!G,%N (02/05/04) --The Department of Transportation undertook a road- widening project to improve Bay Road, which ran through Kochville Township. As a result of widening the road, numerous properties along Bay Road would be affected. Many would no longer conform to the township zoning ordinance's setback requirements or the amount of their legal nonconformity would increase. Consequently, the Department of Transportation sought variances on be- half o~' 16 property owners whose signs, buildings, 6r parldng lots would be affected by the project. The board of zoning appeals con,~ened to consider each variance sepa~ rarely, it granted .:he first one. ~5owever, while it was considering the second request, Bayne. the township officer, stated he opposed the variances because ~e ~vrme~, :s[zn ordinance designed to improve safety issues. After Bavne made ,:hese comments, the board denied almost all o~t' the re- maining variance requests. As the board was considering the last variance, Bavne rmtcie :.~&iirS::naJ ::e~ad,;:~. cc.,mment:.: reg:?:,.':ling cbc variance':3 effect on 134 ,D 200:t '2uin!an .c'~,i:iisam!] "}re~.~p. a, ny cecrocuction ~s 9rohibitad. For more information please ,;ali (617) :~42-00~8.