- 25 -
could only have been carved from the somewhat less than 15
developable acres (outside of the 15.04 acre floodplain area).
Assuming arguendo that the deed limited petitioner’s development
of the Grist Mill property to 30 lots, that limitation, by
itself, does not provide additional land that would have been
available if the same developable acreage had been divided into
62 lots (such as by use of PDH zoning permitting more housing
units per lot). Nothing in the deed limits the size of the homes
(either in square footage to protect the amount of buildable land
that each can cover, or in height to protect the view from any
nearby historical area), or any other development that could have
taken place on or adjacent to the Grist Mill property. Moreover,
nothing in the deed limits the landowner’s ability to seek
rezoning to denser development classifications. Accordingly,
neither petitioner nor the builder was prohibited from building
homes twice the size of those planned for development.
Finally, petitioner’s contention that the development did
not infringe on any view is without merit. The deed contained no
specific provisions to protect the views from the Grist Mill and
the Woodlawn Plantation or any other location. The view from
those properties were not any more protected if 30 instead of 62
residential units were to be built. The natural state was not
protected by the development of 30 rather than 62 units.
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011