1 / 56

Agenda

Welcome to the Fall 2012 Training Session for St. Lawrence County Municipal Planning Boards and Zoning Boards of Appeal. 6:30 – 6:35 Introductions & Overview of Agenda 6:35 – 6:40 County Planning Cost Recovery Initiative 6:40 – 7:10 Recent Court Decisions

odina
Download Presentation

Agenda

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Welcome to theFall 2012 Training Sessionfor St. Lawrence County Municipal Planning Boards and Zoning Boards of Appeal

  2. 6:30 – 6:35 Introductions & Overview of Agenda 6:35 – 6:40 County Planning Cost Recovery Initiative 6:40 – 7:10 Recent Court Decisions 7:10 – 7:25 Overview of Case Studies 7:25 – 7:30 Break 7:30 - 8:00 Breakout Group Discussion 8:00 – 8:25 Report on Group Decisions 8:25 – 8:30 Wrap-up & Additional Training Resources Agenda

  3. Directive of the County Board of Legislators Fees now assessed for 239m and 239n project reviews Fee schedule ranges from $25 to $150 with higher fees for larger projects Fee payment needs to be received with referral to County Planning Board Cost born by applicant County Planning Cost Recovery Initiative

  4. County offered training sessions will also be fee based Same number of training sessions will be held Fee will be $25 per person per session Cost of training sessions will be the responsibility of each municipality Fee schedule will go into effect in 2013 County Planning Cost Recovery Initiative

  5. Planning Boards: Royal Mgt v Town of West Seneca Cade v Town of New Scotland Planning Board Zoning Boards of Appeal: Jonas v Stackler Edwards v Davison Recent Court Decisions

  6. Court Hierarchy

  7. Rational Basis: A clear understanding of how and why a decision was reached based on available evidence. Legal Terms

  8. Arbitrary & Capricious: Arbitrary: Relying on individual discretion rather than fixed rules, procedures or law. Capricious: A decision based on prejudice or preference rather than on fact. Legal Terms

  9. Equal Protection: Standards are applied the same way to one person as to another person under similar circumstances. Legal Terms

  10. Royal Management, Inc. v Town of West Seneca et al William J. Cade v Town of New Scotland Planning Board, et al Planning Board Cases

  11. Construct 2-Story Apartment on vacant lot Subject to SUP Royal Management vTown of West Seneca

  12. Permit Denied: Inadequate sewer system in area Use did not conform to surrounding neighborhood Article-78 filed Royal Management vTown of West Seneca

  13. Town’s record did not support decision Town Engineer informed Town that a larger project nearby could be accommodated by sewer system Dwellings within 200’ had similar orientation Royal Management vTown of West Seneca

  14. Supreme Court and Appellate Court found Town’s decision to be arbitrary and capricious and abuse of discretion Royal Management vTown of West Seneca

  15. Garrison Projects filed Cluster Subdivision, which included water tower and open space to be maintained by Town. Subdivision Approved Neighbor filed Article-78 Cade v New Scotland Planning Board

  16. Court found water tower was sufficiently considered as part of SEQR Record included visual impact assessment, statements, reports, photos and public hearings Conditions regarding tower color and preserving vegetation Cade v New Scotland Planning Board

  17. Jonas v Stackler Edwards v Davison Zoning Board Cases

  18. Construct waterfront home at less than 12’ above mean sea level Area Variance Required Jonas v Stackler

  19. Only set aside decision if ZBA acted illegally or arbitrarily, or abused its discretion Jonas v Stackler

  20. Court found ZBA conducted extensive hearing on matter and found reduced elevation would: Affect flooding Expose surrounding land and groundwater to contamination Have adverse impact on community aesthetics Jonas v Stackler

  21. Based on evidence, Court held: ZBA did not act arbitrarily or illegally Decision upheld Jonas v Stackler

  22. Veronica Realty Corporation requested use and area variance Expand non-conforming adult entertainment night club in downtown business district Edwards v Davison

  23. Use and Area Variance Approved City Council filed Article-78 Supreme Court Denied petition and dismissed the proceeding Edwards v Davison

  24. Appellate Division reviewed four legal tests Record devoid of any evidence Edwards v Davison

  25. Found no rational basis for ZBA’s finding the property could not yield reasonable return Determination annulled, use variance denied Edwards v Davison

  26. Receive periodic emails regarding land use court decisions: lawoftheland.wordpress.com Law of the Land Blog

  27. 5 Minute Break

  28. Planning Boards: Site Plan Review Subdivision Review Zoning Boards of Appeal: Area Variance Use Variance Case Studies

  29. Applicant proposes to construct an 8,000 sq. ft. retail store with 27 parking spaces 1.45 acre, vacant, vegetated parcel with former rail spur No zoning, but subject to site plan review Site Plan Case Study

  30. Adjacent to former gas station (remediated) and diner Agricultural fields, single family residences and farm operations Not in an agricultural district Surrounding Neighborhood

  31. Protect Health & Safety Preserve Town Character Separate Incompatible Uses Traffic Movement & Safety Parking & Loading Standards (Part I)

  32. Town Services Drainage Water & Sewer Disposal Off-Site Impacts Waste Management Standards (Part II)

  33. Fuel Storage Environmental Considerations Pedestrian Circulation Preserve Wooded Areas Signage Standards (Part III)

  34. Applicant proposes to subdivide and develop 20, 1-acre residential lots 102.4 acre parcel with two rows of lots, each lot with well, septic and shared driveway No zoning in the community Subdivision Case Study

  35. Currently an agricultural field, but not in an Ag District Wooded in northern area of parcel Hydric Soils and Federal Wetlands are present Property Characteristics

  36. Year-round and seasonal residences, some waterfront Agricultural fields Vacant, vegetated lots Surrounding Neighborhood

  37. Development Standards

  38. Revegetate disturbed areas Provide street lights as appropriate Provide street trees as appropriate Between 5% - 10% of land developed as open recreation space Other Requirements

  39. Applicant is asking for a reduction in a rear yard setback from 10’ to 3’ feet Request is to accommodate an addition to a vehicle service garage New and used tire storage also proposed for lot Area Variance Case Study

  40. Zoned Commercial Park District (C-3) “to delineate areas for future growth of services, commerce and light industry in an orderly yet flexible manner to meet the needs of private developers.” Other uses in vicinity include a health center, business offices, and a multi-unit housing complex in an adjacent zone Zoning & Neighborhood Character

  41. Undesirable or detrimental change? Feasible alternative? Is variance substantial? Adverse impact? Difficulty self-created? Five Balance of Interest Tests

  42. Applicant is requesting a use variance for a gun shop on his residential property Previously, the applicant sought and received approval for a tattoo parlor as a home occupation and would now like to reuse the space for the gun shop. Petition signed by 15 neighbors okay with gun shop. Use Variance Case Study

More Related