Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/03/2005

Home

Z.B. October 10, 2005 --Page 5 conditional use. As such, it. should haT~e been g-ranted. When a comprehensive plan or a master plan was not incorporated into a city's zon'~ng code, the city could not consider these general aipirati0ns in evaluating whether a proposed use complied With the. city's standards for a permitted use. Although Tallmadge adopted a comprehensive plan in t991 and later adopted an updated version of the comprehensive plan in 1997, the city fa/led to incor- porate the plan into its zoning code. The application adopting the comprehen- sive plan stated that "the revised comprehensive plan developed for the city is approved and adopted," but neither the 1991 nor the 1997 plan ever expressly stated applicants were required to comply with the comprehensive, plan or that the plan was to be incorporated into the city's existing zoning regulations. ' Admittedly, the zoning code referred to the "master plan" requirements, which was likely a reference to its comprehensive plans.. HoWever, the city neglected to fl~rmally adopt either of the comprehensive plans. Thus, Gross Builders could not be required to comply with it. see also: Buckeye Community Hope Foundation v. C;tyahoga Falls, 697 N. E. 2d. /8l (1998). see aLs'o: Committee for the Referendum of Ordinance No. 3844-02 v. Norris, 792 N.E. 2d 186 (2003). Special Permit -- Environmental action causes developer to fil~ new plan New plan creates larger footprint for pt;oposed house Citation: Barlow v. Planning Board of Wayland, Appeals Court of Massachusetts, No. 04-P-663 (2005) MASSACHUSETTS (08/22/05)- In I992, the Planning Board of Wayiand ~anted B arlow a special permit to build a conservation cluster development of seven single-family residences. To obtain a special permit for a conservation cluster development,, an apPli- ' cant had to file an extensive plan covering all the lots.. The site plan consisted of five sheets,, and showed wetlands, buffer zones, driveways, and the loca- tions of houses and septic systems. The special permit included several conditions, including some that af- t'ected only Lot 20. [n fact, for Lot 20, the septic system would be permitted in a specified location in the perimeter buffer zone "only if no other location on Lot 20 proves to be suitable for such disposal." [n 1999, the Department of Environmental Protection issued a superceding ()rder revising the delineation of wetlands on Lot 20. As a result, the wetlands boundary moved to the west and bisected the location of LOt 20's proposed house. Consequently, it was impossible to build the house according to the 1992 special pe~xnit plan. 2005 Quinlan Publisaing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617). 542-0048. 173