Builder Sues Over Rejected Subdivision : Thousand Oaks: Developer Raznick challenges city action in denying 92-home project. It says it has satisfied all requirements.

Saying that Thousand Oaks officials made an arbitrary decision when they denied a proposed 92-home subdivision in Newbury Park, developer Raznick & Sons on Monday asked Ventura County Superior Court to overturn the city’s decision.

“There’s no legal basis for what they’ve done,” Raznick attorney Paul C. Epstein said. “They have to defend the actions they’ve taken in court, and we don’t think they are supported by the record or by law.”

Councilman Frank Schillo, who voted against the proposal but has indicated that he could change his mind if it were revised--said he had been led to believe that Raznick was retooling its plans for the project.

“It really surprises me that they would file a lawsuit,” Schillo said.

The lawsuit is the second filed against the city by a developer disgruntled over repeated rejections of building plans. Nedjatollah Cohan lost a suit against the city over its denial of his plans to develop 47 acres next to the Raznick property. Cohan is appealing the court decision.

Earlier this month, a Raznick official said the developer was considering scaling back the project to 89 houses to meet a requirement to make some lots larger.

The city wants the developer to increase the size of 15 lots adjacent to a wetlands area to 6,500 square feet each. Raznick officials said all of the lots are at least 5,000 square feet.

The project has drawn strong criticism from neighbors, who say the city should not allow large development or grading near wetlands. But Raznick officials say they have made numerous changes in their plan to satisfy such concerns.

“(Raznick) has spent the last two or three years scaling it down,” Epstein said.

*

The subdivision, called Creekside, is proposed for a 44-acre site just west of Lynn and Reino roads.

In October, the city rejected the 92-home development by a 3-2 vote after residents complained that the project was too dense and would not fit in with the neighborhood.

After that, however, Schillo said he could support the development if Raznick reduced the number of houses to be built.

But according to Monday’s lawsuit and Epstein, Raznick has already scaled back the size of the project and faced at least one major delay since April, 1990, when state and federal agencies first studied the development’s effect on adjacent wetlands.

Epstein said the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers and the state Fish and Game Department concluded that the project’s plans required some redesign to create a continuous wetland corridor through the property.

He said Raznick suspended work on the project and fully complied with the demands. The state and federal agencies agreed that the project would not have any significant adverse environmental impact after reviewing the new plans, Epstein said.

At that point, Raznick sought approval of the project from the city of Thousand Oaks. In May, the city Planning Commission approved the redesigned project by a 4-1 vote.

In an effort to placate complaining neighbors, Raznick again made revisions to its plan, deleting four additional lots and increasing the size of some lots next to an existing neighborhood, the lawsuit said.

Still, the lawsuit said neighbors were not satisfied and asked the planning director to appeal the Planning Commission’s approval of the project.

On Oct. 26, the City Council voted 3 to 2 to accept an environmental report showing that the project poses no significant ecological harm. At the same time, however, the council voted 3 to 2 to reject the project.

*

Raznick’s lawsuit said the project was denied because 15 lots were not large enough and would encroach on protected wetlands. But the suit said each of the lots in question was at least 5,000 square feet, which is sufficient to meet city requirements.

“This was the first time any such objection had been raised by Thousand Oaks, even though the project as proposed has been under review since 1990,” the lawsuit said.

Epstein said Thousand Oaks officials do not have legal standing to reject the project because they believe that the project might have an adverse effect on the wetlands area.

“It is our position that the city does not have the authority to regulate wetlands,” he said. That authority, he added, belongs to the state and federal governments.

Schillo, however, said the 15 lots in question are not suitable.

“The one thing I was worried about was the density of the lots along the open space,” he said. “They were too dense.”