Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/03/2005

Home

174 Page 6 -- October t0;'2005 Barlow submitted a new application for a special permit to adjust the oM site plan to move the location of the proposed house. However, the new plan ex~ panded the~'footpr/nt of the house 1,200 square feet and placed portions of the septic tank and driveway into the buffer area. Finding the new plan would have a greater impact than the old one, the board denied the application. Barlow sued, and the court ruled in favor of the board. Barlow appealed, arguing there was no legal reason to deny the new perrmt. DECISION:Affirmed. The board's denial was neither arbitrary nor capr/cious. The evidence indicated that if the garage were moved and the footprint of the house were smaller, the encroachments into the buffer zone by .the septic system and the driveway would be reduced. On this basis, despite consider- ations favoring approval of the new plan, the denial did not appear to be arbi- trary, capricious, or based on illegal gounds. A two-bedroom house with a septic system ' designed for such a house would be feasible under-the old permit's dimensions. At oral argument, Barlow even indicated a willingness to construct a two-story house with the original 2,000-foot footprint. The proposed development did not seem to be. under any new hardship. Ultimately, the planning board's decision not to amend the 1992 special permit to allow a bigger house on Lot 20 was based on legally tenable gounds. see also: Britton v, Zoning Board of Appeals of Gioucester, 794 N. Ed. 2d 2198 (2003). see also: Davis v. Zoning Board of Chatham, 52 756 N. Ed. 2d ]0] (200!). Ordinance --Township limits the number of dogs homeowners may keep Woman with seven dogs claims law is unconstitutional Citation: Stare of Minnesota v. Reinke, Court of Appeals of Minnesota, No. A04-2219 (2005) MINNIES OTA (08/23/05) ~ The Chippewa County Sheriff received complaints about dogs on Reinke's property in Big Bend Township. The sheriff visited the property several times, and saw seven dogs in wire kennels. Because of this, the sheriff cited Reinke for violating a township ordi- nance prohibiting a homeowner from keeping three or more dogs on his or her property. Reinke sued, and the court ruled in the township's favor, Reinke appealed, arguing the dog hmitation was unconstitutional. DECISION: A ffi treed. The ordinance was constitutional. Township ordinances were presumptively constitutional. A challenging party had to show the ordinance had no substantial relationship to publid health, © 2005 quinlan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048.