Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/05/2007

Home

Zoning Bulletin the colUt had to give deference to the board's decision. The board contended that the court disregarded the town's master plan and zoning ordinance and had substituted its judgment for that of the board. DECISION: Affirmed. While it was true that the land use decision of a planning board was generally presumed to be valid, such a decision could be reversed if it was proven to be arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable. Here, the appeals court agreed that the weight of the evidence in the record showed that the board had acted arbitrarily in denying Martelli's subdivision plan. The court noted that the board's responsibility had been to: consider wheth- er Martelli's variance request would advance the purposes of the township's land use law; weigh the benefits of the variance against any detriment; and consider whether the variance could be granted without compromising the in- tent and pmpose of the zoning ordinance. The lower court had found, and the appeals court agreed,.that the board disregarded completely that the evidence showed the subdivision would advance the master plan and.the land use laws. Additionally, the court found that the evidence did not support some of the assertions made by the board in the r'ecord, specifically the board's claim. ~hat the creation of three lots would be a better option than Martelli's planned four. The creation of three lots required one or more variances that were more substantial than the one Martelli sought, and it also raised safety concerns. Lastly, there was uncontested evidence in the record that showed that Martelli's plan would not be detrimental to the neighborhood; in fact, it . would eliminate two nonconforming uses. The appeals court agreed com- pletely with the decisions ,of the lower court, dismissing the board's claim that the court had substituted its judgment for that of the board. See also: Sica v. Board of Adjustment ofTp. of Wall, 127 N.J. 152, 603 A.2d 30 (1992). See also: Wawa Food Market v. Planning Bd. of Borough of Ship Bottom. 227 N.J. Super. 29, 545 A.2d 786 (App, Div. 1988), Due Process-City sues to stop developers after granting initial approval to subdivision Developers claim connunity development director interfered with ~lans illegally Citation: Osborn v. City of Collinsville, 2007 WL 420142 (S.D. Ill. 2007) ll.LINOIS (02l05/07)-Osbom Homes Ine, applied for subdivision plat approv- al in the city of Collinsville. The city granted preliminary approval to a portion of the plan, known as "Pbase I of Parkside Commons," in October 2002. Osborn submitted a plat for final approval in January 2003, but it was never granted. Instead, in May 2004, the. city sued Osborn in court, seeking the removal of all improvements that Osborn had made to the property-im- provements that had been approved by the city previously. Osborn counter- sued, asking the court to enforce the approval of the plat. The court found in Osborn's favor, and declared that the plat was to "have the same force and effect" as if it had been approved by the city. Os- born subsequently applied for building permits to build houses on the lots created by the subdivision, but the city denied all of its applications. 5 103