Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/09/2009

Home

April 25, 20091 Volume 31 No.8 Zoning Bulletin that the vested-rights doctrine existed to protect landowners from unfair changes in zoning laws targeted at stopping partially completed develop- ment. Here, the city had not changed zoning laws after the permit was is- sued in 'order to make the sign illegal. Instead, the Judgment had always prohibited a sign with the features that Halla started constructing after obtaining a permit from Metzer. The sign permit was issued erroneously by Metzer. However, Halla "kn(;w that [it] was requesting a permit for something that the illudgment prohibited and [Halla] [had to be] held accountable for attempting to purposefully violate the [J]udgment," said the coUrt. Therefore, the court concluded that Halla did not obtain vest- ed rights in its substantially completed sign construction because it was aware upon submission of its permit application that the construction sought was prohibited. See also: Yeh v. County of Cass, 696 N. W2d 115 (Minn. Ct. App. 2005). - See also: Stotts v. Wright County, 478 N. \v.2d 802 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991). - Permit Review-Court orders planning board to _ consider criteria in comprehensive plan when reviewing permit application , Permit applicant argues that only ordinance should be considered Citation: Nestle Waters North America, Inc. v. Town of Fryeburg, 2009 ME 30,2009 WL 705693 (Me. 2009) .MAJNE (03/19/09)-In June 2005, Nestle Waters North America, Inc., d/b/a Poland Spring Bottling Company ("Poland Spring") applied to the town for a permit to build a "loadout facility" on three acres in the town's rural residential district. - The town's planning board (the "Board") determined that Poland Spring's proposed projecrwas an "omitted use." An "omitted use" was a uSe not specifically mentioned or covered by any general category of per- mitted ot prohibited uses in the district. Under the town's zoning ordi- nance (the "Ordinance"), "omitted uses" were permitted if the applicant could show that: (1) "the soils, location and lot [we]re reasonable for the proposed use;" (2) the proposed use would "not interfere with" adjacent landowners' use and enjoyment of their property; and (3) the use would "conform to all other requirements of the district" and specified perfor- mance standards. The Board eventually concluded that Poland Spring's project met these criteria for an allowed omitted use. The Board ap- proved Poland Spring's requested permit (the "Board's 2005 Decision"). 4 @ 2009 Thomson Reuters - . 32 ,.....-.....\ \ /-''\ ( ) j ) i\ ..: i I- j i ! 1 , ., ,: -,