Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/02/1997

Home

~ ,,,! Page 6 - November 10,1997 Z.B. C&M appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. Other sections of the ordinance indicated PRDs were allowed only in R-3 zones; whether they were PRD uses or PRD districts didn't matter. The ordinance defined PRDs as "special districts" that could be granted to developers to build residential communities. The section definingR-3 districts mentioned PRDs as possible "options" in those districts. Another section listed PRDs under "R-3 Options." Nothing in the ordinance stated PRDs were allowed in R-2 zones. Therefore, if C&M wanted to establish its tracts as PRDs, it had to first get the ordinance amended to allow it. Rezoning' - Developer wants to rezone agricultural property to shopping center Westland West Community Association v. Knox County, 948 S.l'Y.2d 281 (Tennessee) 1997 Schriver wanted to change the zoning classification of land in Knoxville- Knox County, Ky., from agricultural to shopping center. He filed a rezoning application with the county Metropolitan Planning Commission (MPC). The MPC denied the change, finding "any commercial zone" would be contrary to the county plan. Schriver appealed the denial to the County Commission. The proposal. he presented at the hearing differed from the one he submitted to the MPC. Schriver now proposed changing the zone to planned.conunercial instead of shopping cen- ter. The county commission approved the revised request and rezoned the property. A community association appealed the decision to court, claimIng it was void. It argued that under state law, Schriver had to submit his revised proposal to the MPC b~fore he could seek review from the county commission. The court agreed and voided the decision. Schriver appealed, and the appeals court reversed. It found the revision wouldn't have changed the MPC's decision, because the MPC disapproved of "any commercial zone." Resubmitting the proposal to the MPC therefore would have been futile. The association appealed to the state's highest court. It claimed it didn't matter whether submission to the MPC would have been futile; the appeals court should have considered whether Schriver's revision was substantial. If it was, it had to be resubmitted to the MPC. DECISION: Reversed; approval void. The county commission didn't have jurisdiction to review Schriver's revised proposal, so its approval was void. An applicant whose proposal had been rejected by the MPC could revise the proposal for appeal to the county commission. Whether the applicant had to then resubmit the proposal to the MPC depended on two factors: 1) whether the revisions were substantial, and 2) whether they would have affected the 11.2.. MPC's initial decision. ,- ~