Opinion ID: 1058662
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The trial court erred in affirming the disapproval of Seymour's resubdivision application.

Text: At all times relevant to the underlying proceedings, section 11-1710(B) of the Ordinance provided: No lot shall be resubdivided in such a manner as to detract from the value of adjacent property. Lots covered by a resubdivision shall be of substantially the same character as to suitability for residential use, areas, street frontage, alignment to streets and restrictions as other land within the subdivision, particularly with respect to similarly situated lots within the adjoining portions of the original subdivision. (Emphasis added.) Section 11-1710(B) prohibits the approval of a subdivision that will detract from the value of adjacent property. The City conceded in an interrogatory answer that [t]he division of land into lots is a purely legal construct that, by itself, can have no effect on the value of anything. Therefore, the Planning Commission erred in denying Seymour's resubdivision application on the basis that, as the City explained in answering an interrogatory, the Commission was not satisfied that the lots, as improved, would be compatible with the . . . value of the adjacent lots. (Emphasis added.) Section 11-1710(B) also requires that the proposed lots must be of substantially the same character as other similarly situated lots within the subdivision before a resubdivision application will be granted. Section 11-1710(B) explains that suitability for residential use, areas, street frontage, alignment to streets and restrictions as other land within the subdivision are considered when determining whether the proposed lots are of substantially the same character. Whether the Seymour lot is a corner or interior lot is relevant to this appeal because the terms relate to street frontage and alignment to streets and whether a lot is of substantially the same character to other lots within the subdivision. The City conceded on several occasions that the Seymour lot was not a corner lot. First, the Staff Report concluded that the proposed subdivision of the Seymour lot was consistent with other interior lots in the Latham Subdivision. Second, prior to trial, the parties stipulated that the Seymour lot was not a corner lot under the City's zoning ordinance provisions. Third, Josephson, Deputy Director for the Office of Planning and Zoning for the City, testified at trial the Seymour lot was an interior lot pursuant to the zoning ordinance. Finally, joint exhibit 11, a list of interior lot sizes and addresses prepared by the City, identified 227 North Latham Street, the Seymour lot, as an interior lot in the Latham Subdivision. In contrast, joint exhibit 10, a list of corner lot sizes and addresses prepared by the City, did not include the Seymour lot. Consequently, for purposes of this appeal, the Seymour lot is an interior lot rather than a corner lot. Because the definitions of a corner lot and an interior lot are mutually exclusive, a corner lot and an interior lot cannot be similarly situated. Therefore, Seymour's interior lot and the corner lots in the Latham subdivision are not similarly situated. The Staff Report recommended that the Planning Commission approve the application because the [t]he proposed lots will be consistent with other [interior] lots in the neighborhood in terms of lot area, width, and configuration. No evidence was presented to the contrary. We hold that the trial court's decision affirming the Planning Commission's disapproval of Seymour's resubdivision application was plainly wrong and without evidence to support it. Because the disapproval was not proper under section 11-1710(B) of the Ordinance, the trial court's decision was erroneous.