Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/06/2003

Home

124 Page 6 -- January 25, 2003 Z.B. stated residents rarely wandered away and' the few who did returned to their own homes and did not go into the surrounding neighborhoods. There were few security or safety issues. A simi/ar program was run with such success in another town it received special recognition. People who had committed either violent or sex crimes wei'e not admitted into the program. Abstinence from all substances was also a prerequisite to entering the fac~ty. Those who relapsed or failed a random/y administered drug test were ejected immediately: ' ' - A/though severa/residents from the area spoke against, the permit, they solely voiced their own personal views and fears. Residents testified there was simply a perception the proposed facility would be unsafe. The court relied on'the fact the facility would be unlocked and a security force would not be employed. These two bare facts, without.more, were insuf- ficient to support a finding the proposed facility would compromise public safety. Citation: Municipal Funding LLC v. Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Waterbury, Appellate Court of Connecticut, No. AC 21757 (2002). see also: Irwin V' Planning & Zoning Commission, 711 A.2d 675 (1998). see also: Grasso v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 794 A.2d 1016 (2002). Permit Denial -- City denies permit because of municipal services OHIO (1.2/13/02) --Nicholas Company Inc. bought 14.07 acres in the city of Aurora. The land was in a residential district. The district permitted single-family dwellings with a density no greater than one dwelling per three acres and a minimum lot width of 250 feet. Nicho- las fried an application with the planning commission, seeking to split the lot into two parcels. One of the proposed parcels would have a 250-foot frontage of street, but the second parcel would have only 187 feet of frontage ar the street. The planning commission denied the request after determining Nicholas created, the hardship because two variances would be required for the second lot. The comm/ssion also found Nicholas did not provide a 60-foot road reser- vation requested by the city, the subdivision was not a rational division that Could be. efficiently served by municipal services, and there was a safety con- cern regarding, access to the property, due to unknown subsurface conditions. Nicholas sued.. The court upheld the commission's decision. Nicholas appealed, arguing its application could not be denied for safety and utility reasons. DECISION: Affirmed. The denial was appropriate. The city asked for the 60-foot fight-of-way in order'to connect a roadway for the purpose of providing utilities. The city anticipated future development around the property and there, was some evidence Nicholas would seek to build '1 I I I I I I I '! I I I I ! I I I i I