Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/01/2007

Home

(-',' ,- , Zoning Bulletin The legislature had enacted a statute that created an obligation for mu- nicipalities to approve any subdivision plan that conformed to all applicable zoning ordinances and subdivision requirements "unless the municipality ad- opted written findings based on a record from the public proceedings why the application [should] not be approved." If a court found that a municipality had an obligation to act but did not _ as the lower court determined was the case here - an order directing its actions was appropriate. However, if an obligation to act coexisted with valid reasons for not acting, the proper remedy was for the court to give the mu- nicipality an opportunity to show why it had not complied with the statute. The appeals court found that the board did not have a clear duty to ap- prove the plan simply because it was recommended for approval by the com- mission. Further, the board had valid reasons for denying the application that were supported by the rec.ord. The decision of the lower court was reversed, and the case was sent back for further proceedings. See also: Mendota Golf, LLP v. City of Mendota Heights, 708 N. '\v.2d 162 (Minn. 2006). ( Code - Developer claims code allows single- family homes in business district . Board has different interpretation of the code Citation: S.P. Holdings of Wilmington, LLC v. Town of Kure Beach Beach, 2007 WL 3764 (N.C. Ct. App. 2007). NORTH CAROLINA (01/02/07) - S.F. Holdings of W1lmirigton, LLC, owned a four-lot tract of land in Kure Beach. The property was zoned as a business district; when S.F. acquired it, a motel was located on the property. Under the zoning code, single-family dwellings were not allowed in the district. However, S.F. - relying on a part of the code that stated that: "A single- family dwelling shall be permitted in all districts provided that it conform[ed] to the [residential zone] requirements" - requested permission from the building inspector to construct a single-family residence on each of the four , lots. The inspector denied the request. . S.P. appealed the decision to the board of adjustment, and a public hear- ing was held. The board decided that the part of the Gode on which S.F. relied was meant to further clarify conditions under which single-family dwellings could be constructed on lots of record; it was not a stand-alone provision. Specifically, the code allowed property owners in business or other nonresi- dential zones to build a single-family home on the property if a conforming use was not possible due to dimensional requirements. Ultimately, the board supported the building inspector's decision, and S.F. ap- pealed to court. The court found in the board's favor, and S.F. appealed again. Decision: Affirmed. The case turned on the interpretation of the zoning code. The board had the discretion to interpret the code; absent an error of law, the court could not substitute its judgment for that of the board. Administrative zoning l" 5 19