Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/02/2006

Home

project need not be in perfect conformity with each and every comprehensive plan policy if the plan text provides for fiexibitity of interpretation. In such cases, courts will look at the reasonableness of the [peal gov- ernment's action. An example is the Maine Supreme Judicial Court's decision in La Bonta v, City of Waterville, 528 A.2d :262 (t987), which involved a challenge by resi- dents to the rezoning ora parcel in their neighborhood From residential to commer- cial for the construction of a :7o,ooo- square-foot shopping center. The residents Focused their argument on the comprehen- siva plan's stated goal of protecting residen- tial neighborhoods. However, the court reiected the residents' argument as an overly narrow and [n flexible reading of the comprehensive plan. The court focused on the plan's emphasis on expanding economic opportunity in the city and providing ade- quate space for commercial deve[opment. The plan also specifically identified commer- cial development aiong the arterial street where the development was proposed and identified residential areas to be protected-- the residential area in the vicinity oF the pro- posed development was not one of them. The court found the rezoning struck a rea- sonable balance among the muitipie goals of ~he city's comprehensive plan. Similarly, the Califom(a courts foUow a standard whereby a city council's finding of a proiect's consistency with the plan will not be reversed by a court if, based on the evidence before the council, a reasonable person could have reached Ihe same conclusion; see No ©/I, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, ~96 Cai. App. 3d 2a3 (1987). Some courts acknowledge the integrative nature of comprehensive planning. Comprehensive pians are intended to provide consistent polio/ direction for multiple community functions such as transportation, housing, land use, parks, open space, and utilities. Consistency determi- nations, therefore, need to balance designa- tions [n the community's future land-use map with other plan po[ides and considerations that further refine what is appropriate in the context of the issues and concerns identified in a cam- munity's plan. Simply eva~uating consistency against future land-use designations may be range specified in the pian. The court upheld the challenge because the court Found the rezoning inconsistent with the city's comprehensive plan. The plan designated a range of residential den- sities for a relatively undeveloped area of the city. To implement these plan recommendations, the city ~ezoned the area For residential develop- ment at the highest densities allowed in the densiW ranges. The Community Council a neigh- borhood planning organization that has author- ity to reiect rezonin§s under Washington law, denied the rezonings as inconsistent with the comprehensive p~an. While the community council acknowb edged that the rezoning conformed ~o the den- sity ranges in the comprehensive plan, it argued that it should be at a lower density within those ranges consistent with other pro- visions in the comprehensive plan. The council based its consistency argument on the com- prehensive plan's designation of level of serv- ice on roadways in the area as ~O-," combined with policies that existing single-family neigh- borhoods should be protected from encroach- ment from more intense uses, that land-use densities should be encouraged that would not intensiE/vehicular congestion, and that restrictions would be considered on [and development and density as a viable means of insufficient when there are other mitigating fac- tors identified in the plan. One example is the Washin[ton Supreme Court's decision in C'ty of Bellevue v. East 8etlevue Community Council, tS8 Wn. 2d 937, 983 P. 2d 602 (t999), involving a neighborhood organization's chai[en§e to the cib/'s rezonin§ of an area consisten~ with ~he highest density controlling traffic congestion. The court agreed, noting that the city had flexibility within Ihe density range to use a different zon- ing designation that wou~d be consistent with these other policies. Another example is the Court of Appeal of California decision in Napa Cir/zens for Honest Government v. Nasa County ~o~2rd of ZONING=