WSP01829

• File Number: 8030
• Description: Section D General Compact Issues - US Water Resources Council
• State: CO
• Basin: Statewide
• Date: 8/1/1971
• Author: US Water Resources C
• Title: Regulation of Flood Hazard Areas to Reduce Flood Losses - Draft - Volume II Part V - With Appendices
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Report/Study

01)2358

.(fJ?)

73

commercial subdivisions although the character of these
uses is different than that of residential subdivisions;
For a general discussion of subdivision regulations for
industry see American Society of Planning Officials" SUB-
DIVISION REGULATIONS FOR INDUSTRY, INF. R/?TR. No. 162(1962).

115See statutes cited in notes 130, 131 of Chapter II supra.

116See American Society of Planning Official's, VARYING IMPROVE-
MENT PEQUIPE~mNTS IN SUBDIVISION ORDIN~~CES, INF. REPT. No.
174 (1963). See also 3 ANDERSON 9919.47, 19.48 at 503 et seq.
for a general discussion of varianoes and. waivers. For oases
upholding such powers see Blevens, v. Manchester, 103 N.H. 284,
170 A.2d 121 (1961) (varlance); Lyman v. Planning Bd. of
Winchester, 224 N.E.2d 493 (Mass. 1967) (waiver).

117See notes 146-152 of Chapter III of Part III and accompanying
text.

118For a discussion of varianoes, see 3 ANDEP$ON 9914.45-.81 at
1 et seg_

119For articles discussing cluster subdivisions see note 131, Chapter II,
supra.

120See statutes cited in note 131 of.Chapter II, supra.

121See Blair, How to Regulate Planned Unit Developments for
Hou'sing, -- Sum.rnarv of ,q -R~":'fl}J.3.tc:-~::~ .."':.-::.,,.:--,.'....;,..:~~, 1."1 20~'~:~~~ :C~GL;;.3'i"
;,:;;1., ' (1.o.o:>)-; GoJdston and Scheuer, Zoning of Planned Residen-
tial Developments, 73 HARV. L.. REV.. 241 (1959).

122See Hiscox v.Levine, 31 I>1isc. 2d 151, 216 N.Y.S.2d 801 (1961)
(planning board held to"have limited powers to amend zoning
ordinance but not broad powers); Cheney v. Village 2 at New
Hope, (planned unit development approach upheld) ; .But see
Eves, v. Zoning Bd. of. Adjustment of LOI-Ter GwyneddTwp.. , .401
Pa. 211, 164 A.2d 7 (1960) (limited rezoning invalid as not
in accordance with aoomprehensiv'e plan); Young v. Bd.of
Revielv of Ne~lport (R.I.) 82 R.I. 408, 110 A.2d 436 (1955)
(attempt to change area and frontage requirements 'for subdivi-
sion ~las invalid as rezoning).

123For discussion of "spot zoning" see 11'~DERSON 95.04 at 240
et seg. Spot zoning is often used to describe a zoning amend-
ment not in accordance with a comprehensive plan. See also
Annat., 51 A.L.R.2d 263 (1957). Change of circumstanoes is
usually considered sufficIent to support a zoning amendment.
See 1 ANDERSON 95.03 at 238, 239. E.g., West Ridge, Inc. v.
MoNamara, 222 Md. 448, 160 A.2d 907 (1960).

C~l:;)