Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/04/2006

Home

April 25, 2006 -- Page 7 time of the plan's approval, the development did not meet the zomn= code s building-separation requirement. Under the provisions of the zoning code, two buildings must be separated by a distance equal to the height of the taller of the two buildings, with a rninimum separation of 24 feet. The commission granted a. waiver of this provision, and allowed 16 of the affordable housing units to be separated by a distance of I0 feet. In 2004, the developer requested a modification of the plan to add a study, located over the existing garage, to each of the two-bedroom affordable hous- ing units. The commission voted to deny the requested modification because the additional room over the garage would add to the height of the buildings. Because the buildings were airead3; closer than allowed under the zoning code; the modification would create what the commission called a "canyqn effect." The developer appealed that decision, but the appeal was dismissed. On June 17, 2005, the developer sought an additional modification of the site plan to increase the floor area of 20 of the two-bedroom affordable housing units. The increase in floor area would accommodate a third bedroom above the existing garage. The commission reviewed the request and determined that the modification was m/nor and did not require a heating. The commission voted to deny the request. The developer appealed; DECISION: Appeal dismissed. The developer argued that-the commission gave no reason for its deci- sion, and that the record of the proceedings dtd not support the corm-toss,on s decision. The commission argued that the addition of a third bedroom over the ga- rage would increase the height of the structure to 26 feet. The required building separation under the zoning code was 26 feet, and the commission had already granted a waiver allowing for only 10 feet of separation between 16 of the buildings. The commission concluded that the spacing would inhibit light and air from reaching these units. · The court found that a decision of the planning and zoning commission could only be reversed if the decision was dle=al, arbitrary, or an abuse of discretion." In this case, the developer was requesting an increase in height of a portion of the buildings -- more than was allowed under the zoning code and more than was allowed under the existing waiver. The court concluded that the commission exercised reasonable judgment in reaching its decision and or- dered the developer's appeal dismissed. see also: De Maria v. Enfield Planning and Zoning Commission, 271 A.2d 105 (1970). see also: Sydoriak v. Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Prospect, 879 A.2d 494 (2005). © 2006 Quintan Publishing Group. Any reproOuction is prohibiteO. For more intorrnation please call {617) 542-0048. 67