Court Opinion

ID: 9701371
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 22:17:16.387613+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:23.040186
License: Public Domain

DISSENTING OPINION BY
Senior Judge KELLEY.
I respectfully dissent. Herein, the Zoning Ordinance does not define the term “buildable area” or “buildable land.” As such, the Board was called upon to interpret the meaning of the term “buildable land.” While the majority agrees with the Board’s interpretation, I believe that the Board’s interpretation of the zoning ordinance is not reasonable.
The Board determined that “buildable land” equals the area a developer is permitted to disturb by the construction of a building. In other words, a developer may not disturb more than the actual buildable site. However, in interpreting the zoning ordinance, I believe the Board should have taken into consideration the final outcome and how that final outcome complies with the intent of the ordinance to protect the natural resources sensitive to development such as forests, steeps slopes, flood plains and streams. This approach would surely be in keeping with the principle that zoning ordinances are to be liberally construed to allow the broadest possible use of land. In the instant matter, a review of the plans submitted by Pine Creek clearly shows that the goals and purposes of the zoning ordinance would be' maintained in the end. Accordingly, I would reverse the trial court’s order.