Opinion ID: 2542695
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Master Plan

Text: Cowan contends Bawden failed to show a master plan for his entire property because the plat does not show his plan for developing the five-acre parcel northwest of Eagle's Nest or the sixty-two acres east of Eagle's Nest. The failure to comply with this absolute requirement to show overall planning, Cowan argues, is a basis to disapprove Bawden's application. Here, the Board did not err. First, while the FCDC requires master planning, it does not require denial of an application for failure to meet this requirement. Rather, it provides: Any application for a Class II permit for a subdivision may be disapproved solely on the basis that it fails to show an overall plan for the development of the entire contiguous holdings of the developer and/or owner. FCDC Ch. XII (D) (emphasis added). Therefore, the FCDC does not require the Board to deny Bawden's application. Second, the decision not to deny the application based on this section of the FCDC is consistent with the Board's factual findings. As discussed infra, the Board found that the entire 147 acres were not one development site, but rather two contiguous, separately-owned parcels. Therefore, following this logic, because Bawden provided a plan for the larger parcel, Bawden provided an overall plan for the entire development; the possibility of denial based on FCDC Ch. XII (D) never arose.