Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/10/2003

Home

Z.B. lune 10, 2003 -- Page 3 In addition, because Jenness was ~ven notice of her right and opportunity. to appeal the officer's decision to the board, she could not rear~,m~e the interpre2 ration of the ordinance and the underlying violation. She was bound by the officer's construction of the ordinance. Citation: Town of Boothbay v. Jenness, Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, No. Lin~O]-554 (2003). see also: People v. Scott, 258 N.E. 2d 206 (1970). see also: Commonwealth v. DeLoach, 714 A.2d 483 (1998). Historic Preservation -- Approval denied for retail shopping center City claims plan incompatible with existing architecture and historic character of area NEW HAMPSHIRE (04/11/03) -- Richmond Company applied for site plan approval to build a shopping center with a supermarket on a 34.4-acre .parcel off Main Street in Concord. All ex. isting structures would be demolished and four retail buildings built. After several public hearings, the board voted unanimously to deny the application because it failed to meet city ordinance requirements. Specifically, the board found 1) the p!oject would not expand the city's economic base, 2) the economic impact statement did not adequately address the fiscal costs for municipal services, 3) the application failed to address ancillary employee benefits, 4) the project was incompatible with the current architecture and his- totic character of the area, and 5) the design did not enhance the SCenic and/or recreational uses of the South End Marsh. Richmond appealed. The court found the board's decision was not sup- ported by the evidence and the board failed to give Richmond the opportunity to address and remedy any problems. The court remanded the case to the plan- ning board to "engage in meaningful dialogue with the petitioner as well as validate its findings." The city asked the court to reconsider, but it refused. The city appealed. DECISION: Reversed. The evidence supported the city's decision. The court could not overturn the board's decision unless it was unreasonable. Richmond claimed the board failed to provide meaningful assistance be- cause it did not comment or question the application regarding the specific ordinance during the public heatings and did not respond to specific inquiries. However, Richmond acknowledged the site plan received rigorous review and it was appreciative of the input from the board, city staff, and public. It also stated it discussed the application with the city administration, engineering and planning departments, city councilors, and others before it.was submitted. 191