City of Berea sued over P&Z decision
Berea - The city of Berea is being sued after the Planning and Zoning Commission rejected a development near Christmas Ridge.
Glen Wiles filed sued against the city Tuesday, appealing a July 22 ruling by the commission.
Wiles submitted a site development plan for a three-acre tract with 12 single family homes. The development was would be owned and maintained by Wiles.
But the proposed street that would be used by renters to access their rental homes is narrower than is required by city regulations for subdivisions.
At the July meeting, attorney Roger Oliver, who is representing Wiles, asserted that the development was not subject to the subdivision rules because, technically, it is not a subdvision. In addition, Oliver argued that since the development would not have a street dedicated to the city, it is not subject to the city’s subdivision rules.
City Attorney J.T. Gilbert concurred with Oliver that the development should not be subject to subdivision rules, since the street would not be dedicated to the city.
Commissioner J. Carroll McGill disagreed, however, noting that a new street would have to be built in order to construct the subdivision.
“I’m about to step into it because I’m arguing with two lawyers,” McGill said. “There’s no way this person can develop this piece of property without a new street. It’s my contention that this development is a subdivision because there is a new street involved.”
McGill added that, according to the law as he understands it, property that is subdivided for the purpose of leasing is subject to subdivision regulations.
The commission then voted that the site development plan submitted was, in fact, a subdivision. Don Buchanon, Andrew Gardner, Richard Olson, Ronnie Terrill, Sr., J. Carroll McGill, Sean Clark, and Betty Olinger voted in favor of defining the Christmas Ridge development as a subdivision.
Because Wiles’ development plan was not in compliance with subdivision regulations, there was no further consideration of the item.
Wiles lawsuit stated that the code enforcement officer testified in his opinion that Wiles' development was in conformity, and that the city attorney stated his opinion that it wasn't a subdivision and that it wasn't a street.
As such, Wiles' lawsuit alleges that in disregarding the opinions of the city engineer and the codes enforcement officer that the commission acted with malice, entitling the plaintiff to punitive damages.
The lawsuit asks that the Madison County Circuit Court direct the city planning commission to approve the Wiles application, and award Wiles compensatory damages, including attorney fees, as well as puntitive damages.
Glen Wiles filed sued against the city Tuesday, appealing a July 22 ruling by the commission.
Wiles submitted a site development plan for a three-acre tract with 12 single family homes. The development was would be owned and maintained by Wiles.
But the proposed street that would be used by renters to access their rental homes is narrower than is required by city regulations for subdivisions.
At the July meeting, attorney Roger Oliver, who is representing Wiles, asserted that the development was not subject to the subdivision rules because, technically, it is not a subdvision. In addition, Oliver argued that since the development would not have a street dedicated to the city, it is not subject to the city’s subdivision rules.
City Attorney J.T. Gilbert concurred with Oliver that the development should not be subject to subdivision rules, since the street would not be dedicated to the city.
Commissioner J. Carroll McGill disagreed, however, noting that a new street would have to be built in order to construct the subdivision.
“I’m about to step into it because I’m arguing with two lawyers,” McGill said. “There’s no way this person can develop this piece of property without a new street. It’s my contention that this development is a subdivision because there is a new street involved.”
McGill added that, according to the law as he understands it, property that is subdivided for the purpose of leasing is subject to subdivision regulations.
The commission then voted that the site development plan submitted was, in fact, a subdivision. Don Buchanon, Andrew Gardner, Richard Olson, Ronnie Terrill, Sr., J. Carroll McGill, Sean Clark, and Betty Olinger voted in favor of defining the Christmas Ridge development as a subdivision.
Because Wiles’ development plan was not in compliance with subdivision regulations, there was no further consideration of the item.
Wiles lawsuit stated that the code enforcement officer testified in his opinion that Wiles' development was in conformity, and that the city attorney stated his opinion that it wasn't a subdivision and that it wasn't a street.
As such, Wiles' lawsuit alleges that in disregarding the opinions of the city engineer and the codes enforcement officer that the commission acted with malice, entitling the plaintiff to punitive damages.
The lawsuit asks that the Madison County Circuit Court direct the city planning commission to approve the Wiles application, and award Wiles compensatory damages, including attorney fees, as well as puntitive damages.