Laserfiche WebLink
<br />June 10, 2008\ Volume 2\ No. 11 <br /> <br />vehicles would be unable to respond magnified the Turnpike's exist- <br />ing hazard, making improvement necessary. <br />The court also found that Upton's. proportional share could be <br />one-third of improvement costs. Upton had argued that the board <br />had improperly justified the fee assessed to him by relying only on the <br />fact that his development would nearly double the number of homes <br />on the Turnpike. The court said. that in assessing a developer's pro- <br />portional share of the cost of an improvement, no single factor could <br />be determinative. The court said that factors relevant to deter~g <br />a developer's proportional share of the cost for road improvements <br />could include, but were not limited to: (1) the standard to which the <br />town currently maintained the road; (2) the frontage of the proposed <br />subdivision; (3) the potential traffic increase necessitated by the pro- <br />posed subdivision; (4) the character and potential for development <br />of the neighborhood served. by the road; and (5) the number of resi- <br />dences presently fronting on or normally trafficking these roads. The <br />court found the board considered several of these factors when as- <br />sessing the fee on Upton. Therefore, the court concluded that the fee <br />was properly assessed. <br /> <br />See also: LandNest Properties, Inc. v. Town of Plainfield, 117 N.H. <br />817,379 A.2d 200 (1977). <br /> <br />See also: Zukis v. Town of Fitzwilliam, 135 N.H. 384, 604 A.2d <br />956 (1992). <br /> <br />Constitutionality - Vagueness-City denies <br />developer's preliminary plat applications <br />because they contain flag-shaped lots <br /> <br />Developer argues decision is untimely and ordinance <br />banning such lots is unconstitutionally vague <br /> <br />Citation: Howeth Investments, Inc. v. City of Hedwig Village, 2008 <br />WL 1747210 (Tex. App. Houston 1st Dist. 2008) <br /> <br />TEXAS (04/17/08)-Howeth Investments, Inc. (Howeth) was <br />in the business of purchasing and developing real estate. In March <br />2000, Howeth contracted to purchase two adjacent, undivided prop- <br />erties in the city. Howeth sought to subdivide the properties into at <br />least three lots. In order to meet the city's development requirements, <br />the only way to subdivide the properties separately was to subdivide <br />each property into two sub-lots, with one of the subdivided lots on <br />each piece of property having a "flag" configuration. Aflag configu- <br /> <br />9 <br /> <br />69 <br />