A while back, I posted about an issue with the local planning commission [msg=34300]here.[/msg]
Apparently this has been an issue elsewhere in the state as well. There was a Kentucky Supreme Court opinion published (here) last month that addresses the matter pretty frankly. Hopefully the plain English language used in the opinion will actually be understood by the chair of our local planning commission - it essentially states exactly what I have already told him and the entire planning commission.
The annoying thing about this whole ordeal is that the planning commission chair approved a subdivision which would not meet the outlined criteria listed on page 12 of the opinion yet tried to stymie a division which fully complied with the courts opinion.
This opinion also backed up the local County Clerk's decision to file the plan submitted. The planning commission chair had actually called to complain to her that she filed the plan - this opinion clearly supports her decision.
Thank you for posting. That was a very interesting read.
I tend to be very anti-zoning. However, I will accept that certain concerns should be covered by reasonable laws/ordinances/codes/etc. Greedy people have always found ways to work aruond THE SYTEM to get their quick gain and transfer the burden to others. We, as individuals, should be sufficiently responsible enough to work within THE SYSTEM in most every case. Sadly, there will always be those who thrive on doing otherwise. It is unfortunate that certain people (in this case the County Clerk) get stuck in the middle attempting to enforce their interpretation of what is required by law/ordinance/code/etc.
I didn't read the linked case but from what you describe it is very similar to a case here in North Carolina. Our statute defines "Agricultural Use" and specifically exempts those divisions from local regulation.
As is easily predictable, many local folks were totally ignoring the law and making up stuff as they went along.
Finally there was a case that went all the way to the State Supreme Court. (3 Guys v. Harnett County). The court ruled that exempt means exempt. Thank goodness, right?
Well not exactly as I have had several planners tell me that they were not bound by the ruling in that case because the case did not come from their county.
This is how the game works. Unless and until there are meaningful sanctions imposed on the planners (and the planning board members) who flagrantly break the law, it will continue.
Larry P