Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/07/2007

Home

Zoning Bulletin .' to provide off-street parking to customers. The code was established to determine the number of parking spaces a business would be required to provide relative to its size. Because Midwest did not use the properly in question as a business, it was not bound by this particular section of the code. The appeals court found that the city was attempting to enforce the section of the code as a stand-alone provision, but it contained language that clearly linked it to other parts of the code-specifically, by giving conditions for "required" parking spots, it was clear that it pertained to businesses which were required to provide off-street parking. The city also argued that overflow parking was not allowed in the zone, but it had not cited Midwest on those grounds; that point was moot. Midwest also challenged the constitutionality of the zoning code. The court did not need to address those claims, as the violations against Midwest were found iJ.-"1valid. It reversed the finding of the lower court. See also: Hillis v. Village of Fox Point Bd. of Appeals, 281 Wis. 2d 147, 2005 WI App 106, 699 N.W.2d 636 (Ct. App. 2005). Resubdivision-Neighbors claim resubdividing lot would reduce value of surrounding property City considers proposed houses in reaching its decision Citation: Se)imou1' v. City of Alexandria, 2007 WL 1166138 (Va. 2007) VIRGJ::t"\1LA.. (04/20/07)-Seymour owned a lot in a subdivision in the city of Alexandria. The lot was on the edge of the subdivision and abut- ted a private outlet road and a public park. Seymour filed an applica- tion to subdivide his property into two lots. Staff of the ci-r-y's planning commission considered the application and recommended approval. A public hearing was held, and several residents of the subdivision appeared in .opposition of the plan. The residents testified that the re- subdivision would decrease the value of their lots and change the char- acter of the neighborhood. Allegedly, the residents "did not favor the houses Seymour intended to build on the proposed lots," claiming they would be too large. The planning commission ultimately denied the proposal citiL-"1g a section of the code that stated: "No lor shall be resubdivided in such a manner as to detract from the value of adjacent property. Lots covered by a resubdivision shall be of substantially the same character as to suit- ability for residential use, areas, street frontage, alignment to streets and restrictions as other land within the subdivision, particularly with re- spect to similarly situated lots within the adjoiJ.J.ing portions of the origi- nal subdivision." 6 194