Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/01/2006

Home

Page2--May25,2006 z.g. Denial m Company wants to build condominium complex Zoning commission finds application does not meet subdivision regulations Citation: Seventh Street LLC v. Baldwin Count. Planning and Zoning Commission, lIth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 04-15538 (2006) The lith U.S. Circuit has jurisdiction over Alabama, Florida, and Georgia. ALABAMA (03/06/06) -- Seventh Street LLC sought approval from the zoning commission to build a condominium complex in Baldwin County. Portions of Seventh Street's parcel were not subject to county zoning, but the entire parcel was located in what was designated as a "flood-prone area." Under state law, zoning powers over land within flood-prone areas were ~anted to the county. After hearings, the commission denied the. application, finding, that the application did not meet the requirements of the county subdivision regula- tions. Seventh Street sued, and the court ruled in favor of the commission. Seventh Street appealed, arguing that the commission's reasons for its decision were unconstitutionally vague. DECISION:Affirmed. The commission provided ample support for its decision to deny Seventh Street's application under the subdivision regulations. The commission conducted two public hearings, and it notified Seventh Street of the deficiencies in its application. The record showed that Seventh Street failed to comply with various sections of the subdivision regulations, including failure to obtain permits, submit construction plans, and conduct necessary studies; failure to identify the size and location of water and sewage lines to which it would connect; and failure to calculate pre- and post-develop- ment water runoff. For Seventh Street to prove its claim, it had to show that the subdivision regulation used in denying its application was "so vague and indefinite as really to be' no rule or standard at all." The commission, however, gave clear and legiti- mate reasons for denying the application; judgment in its favor was appropriate. see also: Town of Orange Beach v. Baldwin County, 491 So.2d 945 (1986). see also: Seniors Civil Liberties Ass'n v. Kemp, 965 F. 2d 1030 (1992). Enforcement-- Neighbor seeks to enforce single-family, two-car garage restriction Homeowner has attached and freestanding garages Citation: Finchler v. Librandi, S~tperior Court o.~'Connecticut, Judicial District of Stamford-Norwalk at Stamford, No. CV040199974S (2006) CONNECTICUT (02/17/2006) -- On May 15, 1974, Librandi acquired a parcel of property from his parents. Librandi's parents acquired the property in 1967 from a developer under a warranty deed, which contained a restriction that "no © 2006 Quinlan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048. 82