Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/02/1997

Home

. p, Z.B. November 10,1997 - Page 7 Schriver's revision was substantial so the court didn't have to decide whether it would have affected the MPC's decision. The change wasn't a "mere revision to a previously proposed zoning amendment." It was an entirely new proposal because it sought an altogether new zoning classification. A change that substantial had to be reviewed by the MPC before the county commission could decide on it. see also: State v. Board of Commissioners of Knox County Tennessee, 806 S. ~2d 181 (1990). l/LI Rezoning - Landowners claim rezoning violated town's comprehensive plan Daniels v. Van Voris, 660 N.Y.S.2d 758 (New York) 1997 In 1993, the town of East Greenbush, N.Y., adopted a comprehensive development plan. Under the plan, 90 acres of mostly undeveloped land located near a new interstate exit would be in a low density residential zone. Land on the same road but west of the interstate would remain in a C Jrporate office/ commercial district. In 1994, the town board amended its zoning ordinance to rezone a portion of the 90 acres from residential/agricultural to corporate office only. The rest of the land was rezoned to corporate office/regional commercial. A group of owners of property on or near the rezoned land sued the town board, challenging the zoning amendment as unreasonable and arbitrary. The owners claimed the board violated state law because the zoning amendment didn't conform with the town's comprehensive plan. They also argued the amendment was illegal spot zoning - singling out a small parcel of land for a use totally different from the surrounding area for the benefit of the owner to the detriment of other owners. The owners apparently claimed the board amended the land to benefit an automobile dealership that owned about 32 acres of the rezoned property. The board claimed it rezoned the property because of the new interstate exit, which greatly improved access to the town from adjacent urban areas. The board said the new exit resulted in the creation of corporate offices and several manufacturing and research facilities on the land west of the interstate, which led it to conclude the corporate office/regional commercial district should be extended to the 90-acre parcel on the east side of the interstate. The board said it was also influenced by the county's master plan, which recommended that municipalities along the interstate provide commercial and light industrial uses on land surrounding interstate exits. The board asked the court to dismiss the owners' claims, and the court granted its request. The landowners appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. The zoning amendment was neither unreasonable, arbitrary, nor spot zoning. The owners failed to prove the amendment was unreasonable and arbitrary, which they had to do to overcome the strong presumption in favor of the validity of zoning amendments. The owners didn't show the board deviated from the comprehensive plan enough to negate the plan'8 original intention that the land