Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Zoning Bulletin <br /> <br />The court concluded that, even if the landowners proved their <br />assertions regarding improper consideration, the board's decision <br />must be upheld because there were "adequate considerations" <br />upon which the board could have based its decision. Here, the <br />court found that: "A denial by a Board [would] be upheld provid- <br />ed there exist[ed] any reason for the denial, even if the Board did <br />not articulate that reason in its decision." <br />With regard to the takings claim, the court found that there had <br />not been any "physical invasion or actual taking," thus the ques- <br />tion was whether the board's decision denied "all economically <br />beneficial or productive use of the land." Based on the evidence <br />presented, the court was not persuaded that the landowners had <br />suffered an economic taking because they did not hold an ease- <br />ment or other access way to their property prior to the board's <br />dec.ision. The landowners "merely lost the ability to negotiate and <br />possibly purchase an easement" over the development parcel and <br />open space. <br />The Board's decision did not interfere with any of the land- <br />owners' vested rights or investment-backed expectations, and <br />the board was within its discretion in issuing its decision condi- <br />tioned upon the conveyance of the land to be used as open space <br />. to the commission. <br /> <br />See also: Davis v. Zoning Bd. of Chatham, 52 Mass. App. Ct. 349, <br />754 N.E.2d 101 (2001). <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />l~IJ~i~~gl~r <br /> <br />- on ___ <br />- --".--... ..... --. <br />-."-'. ......-. .-.....- <br /> <br />'-1sWS~~Itjj;:;ilJli\i;:1~i~~~J~~1~i;f~~~~ <br /> <br />12 <br /> <br />140 <br /> <br />v. <br />., <br />/ <br /> <br />.J <br />