Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/04/2007

Home

( - Z.B. December 24, 2006 ---- Page 3 ( ',- Ordinance - New section creates different bmdcategories Landowner claims illegal because mconsistqnt with comprehen$ive plan Citation: Smethurst v. Municipality! of Stetson, Superior Court of Maine, Penobscot Co., No. AP-2006-04 (2006) MAINE (10/24/06) - Smethurst applied to the Municipality of Stetson for a building permit to build a residential structure on his land. The Stetson Appeals Board ultim~tely deqi7dtheapplication. In doing so, it cited Section 3-N of the building code, which dealt with rules regarding developments on public and non-public ways. Under Section 3-N, Smethurst did not meet the minimum lot size requirements. Smethurst sued, and the court ruled in favor of the city. Smethurst appealed, arguing Section 3-N was inconsistent with the com- , prehensive code, and thus unenforceable. DECISION: Reversed. The ordinance was not consistent with Stetson's comprehensive plan. Con- sequently, it could not be enforced. Under state law, any municipal ordinance;had to be consistent with a com- prehensive plan adopted by the municipal legislative body. Whether an ordi- nance was consistent with a comprehensive plan depended on whether the two co-existed in basic harmony. Stetson adopted Section 3-N after the Sitetson comprehensive plan was adopted by the city. Although the types of r~strictions Section 3-Nrequired; such as minimum lot size, were also the types of restrictions that the compre- hensive plan suggested in order to preserve the small town rural character of the city, the categories of land in each plan Were very different. " The comprehensive plan divided the municipality into &everal distinct re- gions, including village residential, mixed residential, and rural residential dis- tricts. These categories were very different from the two categories of land created by Section 3- N: land on a "public way" and land "not on a public way!' Consequently, the comprehensive plan and Section 3-N did not fit together in basic harmony. Ultimately, for the above reasons, Section 3-N ~as null and void. see also: Priestly v. Town of Hennon, 814 A.2d 995(2003). see also: Bragdon v. Vassalboro, 780 A.2d 299 (2001). I ! i !: " I. I Variance - Tattoo parlor argues it is the same as atavemor headshop Claims board is treating it differently than ~imilarly situated businesses Citation: On Point Professional BodyA:rtv. City of Cleveland, Court of Appeals of Ohio, 8th App. Dist., Cuyahoga co., No. 87572 (2006) OHIO (11/02/06) - On Point Profe~sional ,"ody Art applied to the Board of @2006West, a Thomson business. QuinlanTM1~a Thomson West brand. Any reproduction is prohibited. 151