My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/03/2008
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
2008
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/03/2008
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 9:44:58 AM
Creation date
3/28/2008 12:54:09 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
04/03/2008
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
211
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />Zoning Bulletin <br /> <br />'. <br /> <br />The court also rejected the Residents' argument that the city's (.---..) <br />decision to grant the CUP was arbitrary and capricious. Decisions, <br />would be reversed as arbitrary and capricious if they were obvi- <br />ously in bad faith or indicated a lack of fair and careful-consider- <br />ation, the court said. The court found there was no evidence that <br />the city's decision was in bad faith or was "whimsical." Rather, <br />the court noted, the city held a hearing on the issue at which it <br />received sworn testimony and evidence. The fact that the evidence <br />could have supported a different outcome did not support the Resi- <br />dents' argument that the .city acted in an arbitrary and capricious <br />manner, the court concluded. <br /> <br />See also: Mann Media, Inc. v. Randolph County Planning Bd., 356 <br />N.C. 1,565 S.E.2d 9 (2002). <br /> <br />Rescission of Constructive Approval-Applicant appeals <br />town's rescission of constructive approval; alleges town <br />failed to obtain required consent of mortgagee <br /> <br />Town argues bank's consent was not required because the <br />mOJ:tgage was not entered in good faith <br /> <br />Citation: Terrill v. PlanningBd. of Upton, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 171, <br />2008 WL 305733(2008) <br /> <br />Terrill submitted a subdivision plan to the town for approval. <br />The town voted to deny approval of the plan. State statutory law <br />required a certificate of final action on a subdivision plan be filed <br />by the statutory review deadline. After the city failed to file the cer~ <br />tificate by the deadline, Terrm asked the town's clerk to issue a cer- <br />tificate of constructive approval, in accordance with the state law. <br />Constructive approval was issued on January 28, 2004. <br />Before constructive approval issued, believing it would issue, <br />Terrill conveyed that information to the bank in support of an ap- <br />plication for a construction loan. The bank appraised the property <br />on January 20, 2004. The bank received a copy of the construc- <br />tive approval on January 28, 2004. On January 30, 2004, Terrill <br />obtained a construction loan from the bank, and granted the bank <br />a mortgage, secured by the subdivision. The loan was closed on <br />February 2, 2004. <br />On February 17, 2004, the town voted to rescind the construc- <br />tive approval. A certificate of that decision was filed with the town's <br />clerk on February 25,2004. <br />Terrill appealed the rescission of the constructive approval to the <br />land court. The land court ruled that the town's rescission was void <br /> <br />10 <br /> <br />146 <br /> <br />J <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.