Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/06/2007

Home

August 1, 2007 I Volume 1 I No. 15 with all of the specific criteria found in the ordinances and subject to rea- sonable conditions with the Planning Commission may impose in order to minimize any adverse impact on nearby landowners and residents. " If the court upheld the town's decision, it found that w.ould amoUIlt to subjecting a landowner of land zoned for a specific use to "the future whim or caprice of the Commission by clothing it with the ability to im- pose ad hoc requirements" on land use not specified anyv,,rhere in the or- dinances. The result, the court stated, would be the imposition of uncer- tainty on all landowners with regard to whether they could rely on the permitted uses established UIlder the zoning ordinances. The court returned the case to the town council with an order to grant Difrancesco's permit request. See also: East Lake PartneTS 1/. City of Dover Planning Com'n, 655 A.2d 821 (Del. Super. Ct. 1994). Appeal-Neighbors challenge decision allowing ltourist home' on adjoining property Claim zoning officer could only interpret, not define, terms Citation: Allen v. Woodford County Bd. of Adjustments, 2007 WL 1892941 (Ky. Ct. App. 2007), as modified, Uuly 13, 2007) KENTUCKY (06/29/07)-Post owned property in Woodford County. In February 2005, Post applied to the COll.11ty board of adjustrnent for a conditional use permit for a "tourist home" on his property. The prop- . erty was in an agricultural zone. Because the cmulry's zoning ordinance did not contaicl a dellilition of "tour- ist home," the board's zoning compliance officer supplied a definition from a standard reference text from the board's library. The dellilition stated that a tourist home was "[a]n establishlTJent in a private dwelling that supplies tem- porary accommodations to overright guests for a fee. See Bed and Breakfast." The board ultimately approved the permit with several conditions. A group of neighboring property OVV"Tlers, including l!lJJen, filed a complaint in court seeking to overrurn the permit. luter a hearing, the court found that the decision granting the permit was not arbitrary or capricious, and the decision was upheld. Allen appealed. Decision: Affirmed. Allen argued that the board acted arbitrarily when it relied upon the def- inition of a tourist borne supplied by the zoning compliance officer. Allen aclmowledged that rhe zoning officer had the authority to interpret terms, but he insisted rha t by defining "tourist horne," the zoning officer was cre- ating law, rather than interpreting a term, in excess of her authority. Tbe board countered that the zoning officer was performing her job when she supplied the definition. Fur-iller, the board pointed to a section of the zoning ordinance that gave those disagreeing with an interpretation or OTher act by a zoning official 30 days to appeal such an action. The 5 117