Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/06/2009

Home

Zoning Bulletin June 25, 20091 Volume 3\ No. 12 \ See also: Hogan v. Hayes, 19 Mass. App. Ct. 399, 474 N.E.2d 1158 (1985). See also: Hamilton v. Planning Bd. of Beverly, 35 Mass. App. Ct. 386,620 N.E.2d 44 (1993). Case Note: In its decision, the court acknowledged that circum- stances beyond a variance holder's control may make obtaining a building permit within one year of the grant of a variance im- possible. Therefore, the court said that equitable tolling of the one-year period would be warranted if the variance holder could show that: (1) the holder had timely sought an extension of the variance; and (2) .delays clearly attributable to others had ham- pered the holder's efforts to obtain a building permit. Here, Cor- nell had failed to make those showings as he: (1) did not seek an extension of the variance until several months after the expiration of the one-year period; and (2) failed to establish that the delays in obtaining the approvals necessary for a building permit were not reasonably avoidable since he had unexplainably delayed seeking those approvals. Administration-Businesses maintain zoning violation complaints made against them as unenforceable They contend this is because zoning inspector that filed complaints was not appointed in accordance with law Citation: New Sun Business Park, LLC v. Yuma County, 2009 WL 1203340 (Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009) ARIZONA (OS/OS/09)-In 2007, complaints alleging zoning vi- olations were filed against New Sun Business Park, LLC and Col- fred Ranch, LLC (collectively, "New Sun"). The complaints were filed by Ron Van Why ("Van Why"), a deputy zoning inspector for the county. New Sun. responded by filing a complaint in superior court. Among other things, New Sun alleged that: (1) Van Why had not . befen appointed in accordance with state statutory law; and (2) there- fore, the county was precluded from enforcing its zoning ordinances against New Sun. @ 2009 Thomson Reuters 9 " 159