Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/03/2003

Home

Z.B. March 1 O, 2003 -- Page 7 The board had to determine what uses were "reasonable" under the circum- stances. The property was a large lot Containing.numerous pockets of wetlands scattered throughout the site. It was located' in a commercial district, and it bordered automobile dealerships, a clinic, and two bank branches. Because of limited access and lack of visibility from the road, 'it was neces- sary to put something large on the property that woUld draw traffic to the site. Consequently, smaller stores would not be reasonable from an economic stand, point. Citation: McKibbin v. City of Lebanon, Supreme Court of New Hampshire, No. 2001-742 (2003). see also: Simplex Technologies v. Town of Newington, 766 A.2d 713 (2001). see also: Geiss v. Bourassa, 670 A.2d 1038 (.1996). Ordinance -- Ordinance places restrictions on clear cutting Property owner claims restrictions unduly burdensome PENNSYLVANIA (02/03/03) -- chin Brothers Inc. filed fOur zoning permit applications to perform "Clear Cut Timber Operating and Support Activities" on five separate pieces of property it owned. Cb2n Brothers stated it would use the harvested trees and vegetation as mulch. · The applications were denied because the local ordinance restricted clear cutting and set forth a policy of preserving trees and forests. Specifically,. the ordinance prohibited clear cutting on tracts larger than two acres, requi~,ed pres- ervation of at least 30 percent of the forest canopy on tracts larger than two acres, and prohibited clear cutting on slopes greater than 15 percent.. Chin Brothers sued, and the court ruled in favor of the board. Chin Brothers appealed. It argued the ordinance was unduly resthctive. DECISION: Affirmed. The ordinance's restrictions on clear cutting were not unduly restrictive. Zoning ordinances could not unreasonably re. strict the manner in Which a landowner chose to use his. or her land. However, the restrictions were placed on clear cutting, on steep slopes and the clearing of woodlands to help prevent erosion. These restrictions were con- sistent with an engineering study. The board concluded "the elimination of all the trees On the subject proper- ties, including the areas of steep slopes, will eXpose soils of the denuded hill to the undiminished force of nature and to increased erosion and permanent l°ss. The potential environmental damage is sizable:" Ultimately, an ordinance based on an engineering study that enacted restric- tions to prevent soil erosion was not arbitrary Or unreasonable and did have a substantial relationship to the public welfare. 213