Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/07/1997

Home

Z.B. August 25, 1997 - Page 3 . .. certification nor granting of a conditional development permit constituted a taking of King's property. The state provided alternatives to King's proposal that would be less environmentally damaging. King could avoid filling the wetlands at all by either building a road offto the side, or by planning to build houses on stilts above the wetlands. Although perhaps not the besfuse of the property, these were practical alternatives that would allow King to use her land. Moreover, only 2 of the 8 acres were affected by the denial; 6 acres of nonwetland property remained. Once the state gave practical alternatives, King lost an element essential to her taking claim. The alternatives showed King wasn't deprived of all practical use and reasonable value of the property. If King now submitted a proposal that incorporated the state's alternatives, and the state didn't approve it, she could bring a new taking claim to trial. see also: Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003, 112 S.Ct. 2886, 120 L.Ed.2d 798 (1992). Lowe v. Bradford, 289 S.E.2d 363 (1982). ~o Subdivision - Should commission have considered aesthetic issues not listed in zoning laws? Wolf Pen Preservation Association Inc. v. Louisville & Jefferson County Planning Commission, 942 S. W2d 310 (Kentucky) 1997 Canfield-Knopf Properties Inc. (developer) wanted to subdivide and develop about 57 acres of land known as Wolf Pen Woods in Jefferson County, Ky. The property was zoned to allow up to 4.8 dwellings per acre; the developer's proposed density was 2.7 units per acre, about half that permitted by the town zoning ordinance. The developer applied to the Louisville and Jefferson County Planning and Zoning Commission for approval to subdivide and develop the land. The Wolf Pen Preservation Association Inc., a group of property owners formed to safeguard "the rural residential character and integrity of the Wolf Pen Branch Corridor," opposed the subdivision. The association claimed the proposed development's density wasn't compatible with the "existing residential density" along Wolf Pen Branch Road. Many of the association's members owned property zoned to allow only one dwelling per acre. The developer claimed the association was trying to down- zone the acreage requirements of Wolf Pen Woods, which acted as a natural buffer between its members' properties and a noisy freeway. The commission concluded the plan complied with the town's very detailed subdivision regulations, so it approved the developer's request. The association appealed to court. It claimed the commission's subdivision approval was arbitrary and capricious because the commission didn't consider whether the proposed subdivision was compatible with adjacent properties. The commission claimed it couldn't consider "aesthetics" when deciding whether to grant or deny a subdivision application. It also claimed it had no