Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/01/2007

Home

! ~ i ;' ~ ' " Octobe;r 15, 20071 Volume 11 No. 20 '--.') reasonable time for compliance with the condition of the variance that a main dwelling be constructed on the property. See also: Rebhan v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of To'wn of Milan, Dutchess County, 163 A.D.2d 728,558 N. Y.S.2d 716 (3d Dep't 1990). Subdivision-'-Developer awarded 'extraordinary' form of legal relief to compel town to consider s!-,bdivision request Town argues decision of planning official was not subject to compulsion Citation: Umstatttj v. Centex Homes, G.P., 2007 WL 2683722 (Va. 2007) VIRGINIA (09/14/07)-In 2003, Centex Homes purchased a 324-acre tract of land in the town of Leesburg. The property was zoned for resi- dential use in a category that perinitted subdivision into one-acre lots. Centex initially sought to rezone the property to allow for more dense development, but it ultimately abandoned that pursuit and proceeded with development plans that were allowed as a matter, of right under the existing zoning regulations for the'district. Centex submitted a preliminary plat application to the town. The planned subdivision proposed 191 single-family detached homes. Shortly after submitting the application, a planning official sent Centex a letter stating that the town had rejected the preliminary subdivision plat be- cause of "significant deficiencies" in the application. The letter listed six specific reasons for rejecting the application, one of which was that the plan failed tq "include 'suitable information' concerning the coordination of streets within the subdivision with existing or planned neighboring stre~ts in the area." The letter specifically listed failure to coor- dinate plans with a development known as Battlefield Parkway as one of the deficiencies in the application. The other reasons given included, but were not limited to, violatioIl,sof land development regulations. , Centex filed a complaint in court, claiming that the rejection was pre- textual. Centex claimed that the town was favoring the construction of Battlefield Parkway, and it argued that the planning officer's decision pre- cluded the application from being heard bytlie correct governing agen- cy-the planning' commission. Centex argued further that the officer's duty was purely ministerial and that he did not have the power to reject the application. ' , Centex asked the court for a form of relief known as mandamus, which was granted sparsely and only under very specific cOI}ditions. It also asked the court for a declaratory judgment that would force the plannillg com- qUssion to consider the application and declare unlawful the passing of any ordinance that would allow the town to refuse to do so. The court granted the request for mandamus, finding that refusal by the local official to accept the applicatioilleft Centex without any means 11 I, 97