Laserfiche WebLink
<br />" <br /> <br />:" <br /> <br />,~ <br />( ') <br />\ ' <br /> <br />( <br /> <br />.-------- <br />\. <br />) <br /> <br />(, )l <br />j <br /> <br />January 25, 2008\ Volume 21 No.2 <br /> <br />MASSACHUSETTS (12/13/07)-Eaglebrook Development applied <br />to the town of Wrentham for a comprehensive permit for the con- <br />struction of a condominium project. The zoning board of appeals <br />granted the permit, with the condition that Eaglebrook convey a <br />portion of the land to the town's conservation commission to be <br />used for open space. <br />A group of abutting landowners challenged the board's impo- <br />sition of the condition, arguing that the land designated as open <br />space was the only potential means of access to their property. The <br />landowners asked for an easement over the open space, without <br />which they claimed they would not be able to develop their land. <br />The landowners filed.a complaint in court naming the board, in- <br />dividual board members, developer, and others as defendants. The <br />landowners sought to annul the board's decision because it was ar- <br />bitrary and capricious and exceeded the board's authority. In ad- <br />dition, th~y asked to be compensated at fair market value for their <br />property because the board's decision constituted an illegal taking <br />under the Fifth Amendment. <br /> <br />Decision: <br /> <br />The court could not set aside the board's decision unless it <br />found, in light of all the evidence, that the decision was "based <br />on a legally untenable ground, or [was] unreasonable, whimsical, <br />capricious or arbitrary." . <br />One of the landowners' primary complaints was that the <br />board was persuaded by "improper considerations." Not only <br />did the landowners submit various informal alternate proposals <br />to the board, they also offered to convey seven acres of the par- <br />cel to be used for conservation purposes. In addition, a member <br />of the conservation commission that recommended the location <br />of the open space lot was once interested in purchasing part of <br />the land in question. <br />Further, the landowners alleged that a statement made at a meet- <br />ing of an ad hoc committee formed by the board showed that the <br />board's decision was based on inappropriate deliberations. That <br />statement indicated that the board was interested in "heading off" <br />future developments of the same nature. But the court noted that <br />the purpose of the ad hoc committee was to discuss development <br />in general, and projects similar to the one proposed in particular; <br />thus, the court reasoned that it was understandable that such a <br />statement might be made in that context. <br /> <br />11 <br /> <br />139 <br />