Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/07/2006

Home

-I .,..~.-.. Z.B. October 25,2006 - Page 7 from the public had any comments or questions. hnportantly, even though the planner stated that the requirement was necessary so that emergency vehicles and school buses could get to the property, no one from the fIre, police, or school departments testifled at the hearing. Inaddition, there was nothing in the record to indicate how many parcels of land would be affected by the amendment. The amendment was approved, and Andrews sued the commission in court. The court found that the commission had exceeded its authority, and the amend- ment was voided. The commission appealed, arguing that it had authority under state law to make the amendment to the subdivision regulation for the sake of public safety. DECISION:A:ffirmed. To determine if an action of the commission fell within its vested control, the court noted that it did not "search for a statutory prohibition against such an enactment; rather, [it] search[ed] for statutory authority for the enactment." State law gave the planning commission the authority to establish subdivision regulations; however, the law contained language that defined the scope of that authority. Nothing in the law granted the commission the specillc authority to require that proposed access roads connect to existing roads within the town. With regard to roads, the statute authorized the town to ensure only that the proposed subdivision roads were "in harmony with existing roads in the plan of development, form[ ed] safe intersections with existing roads, and [were] arranged and of adequate width to haridle the existing and proposed traffic." The coinmission argued that other language in the statute, which stated that subdivided land could not pose a danger to public health or safety, autho- rized it to regulate the access roads. However, it could not demonstrate how requiring the access roads to connect to existing roads in Wallingford was necessary for public health and safety. The town planner's single statement that it was necessary did not constitute sufficient proof that the amendInent was justifled to ensure public safety. Because the commission exceeded its authority, the decision of the lower court was not in error, and, therefore, it was affirmed. Variance - Homeowner claims narrowness of property restricts ability to build garage Board states that zoning requirements could be met without variance Citation: Montgomery County v. Rotwein, Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, No. 2414, Sept. Term, 2004 (2006) MARYLAND (09/06/06) - Rotwein owned property in a residential zone of Mont - gomery County. The property was located near a bend in the road, and was consid- erably narrower than other property in the neighborhood. Rotwein wanted to re- place a free-standing carport with an enclosed, two-car garage. Because the garage would not meet the zone's setback requirements, she applied for a variance. @ 2006 Quinlan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048. 63