Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/07/2007

Home

May 15, 2007 I Volume 1 I No.1 0 Seymour appealed the decision of the commission to the city coun- cil, which upheld the decision. Seymour then appealed to COurL The trial COlLrt found that the city had erroneously considered the potential improvements to the lots-in other words, the houses that Seymour planned to build-in considering the resubdivision application, but it nonetheless upheld the application's denial. Seymour appealed again. The city appealed the part of the decision that found "improvements could not form the basis on which a resubdi- vision application would be denied." Decision: Affirmed in part, reversed in part. The appeals court affirmed the part of the ruling regarding whether the city could consider the improvements as part of a resubdivision appli- cation. The city's charter stated that the purpose of subdivision regula- tions was "to provide for the orderly division of land for development or transfer of ownership." The city could not interpret an ordinance beyond its intended purpose; therefore, the city could not consider the anticipated improvements on Seymour's proposed lots when consider- ing his application. With regard to the denial, the appeals court reversed that decision. The commission argued that approval would impact the value of other lots in the subdivision negatively, but the court found that "division of land into lots [was] a purely legal construct that, by itself, [could] have no effect on the value of anything." The court noted that the city in- chided the words "as improved" in its denial, which demonstrated that the city had erred. There was some debate as LO whether Seymour's lot ViTas a comer lot, which had a higher value, and whether dividing it would reduce its val- ue as compared to similarly situated, or comer, lots. However, the city had recorded Seymour's lot as an. interior lot when the subdivision was created, and it acknowledged at trial that it was considered an iL-"1terior lot. The two proposed lots would be similar in size and value to other interior lots in the subdivision; the city's argument here failed. Finally, the planning commission had recommended the application's approval initially, stating that "the proposed lots would be similar vvith other lots in the neighborhood in terIDS of lot area, width, and configu- ration." Because no other evidence was presented to the contrary, the lower court had clearly erred when it found in the city's favor. See also: Higgs v. Kirkbride, 258 Va. 567, 522 S.E.2d 861 (1999). 7 195