Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/07/2006

Home

Z.B. October 25,2006 - Page 3 Residential Zone and the Shoreland Protection overlay in the city of Biddeford. One of the lots already contained a residence, and Logan wanted to build another home on two of the remaining lots. Logan submitted a building permit to the zoning board of appeals. The board denied Logan's application, fmding that his land was covered by both the general coastal zoning ordinance and the special shoreland ordinance. Since the general ordinance would not allow the construction, and the shoreland would, it found that the two ordinanceS conflicted. The board determined that the more restrictive ordinance should apply. Logan sued the city, and the court ruled in his favor. The court found that the two ordinances did not conflict, because they were designed for different situations. The court found that the shorela.nd ordinance was more applicable in Logan's situati?n, because the land in question was adjacent to the shore. The city appealed, arguing that the more restrictive general ordinance con- trolled the permit application. DECISION: Reversed. The board had to deny Logan's permit application. Under local law, when provisions were inconsistent or in conflict, the more restrictive provisions con- trolled. Applying the shoreland ordinance, Logan was entitled to a permit because the lot could accommodate a subsurface sewage disposal system, and when lots 29 and 30 were combined, they created the necessary 70,000-square foot minimum and 200 feet of shore fr<?ntage. However, under the general. ordinance, Logan's lots had to be combined to meet the dimensional standards. Based on the soil profile of the lots,thegen- eral ordinance required a minimum of 80,OOO-square feet for single-family resi- dential use. Because there was already a home on one of the lots, the four lots had to contain at least l60,000-square feet in total. However, the four lots only had a combined area of 104,OOO-square feet, so no combination of the remaining lots could allow him to build a second residence. Consequently, since the general ord.inance was more restrictive, the board had to follow its rules over the shoreland ordinance. see also: Peregrine Developers, LLC v. Town of Orono, 854 A.2d 216 (2004). Special Use Pennit - Zoning ordinance fails to provide for motocross tracks Landowner claims area's needfor motocross tracks makes ordinance illegal Citation: Bracelin v. Allegan Township Zoning Board of Appeals, Court of Appeals of Michigan, No. 259758 (2006) :MICHIGAN (08/17/06) - Over the course of five years, Bracelin built a motocross track on his property, Which was located in an agricultural district of the town- ship of Allegan. When neighbors complained, Bracelin applied for and received a special @ 2006 Quinlan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048. 59