Laserfiche WebLink
<br />August 10, 20091 Volume 31 No. 15 <br /> <br />Zoning Bulletin <br /> <br />entific data comparing the noise levels of the area with the berm in its (/j <br />present and proposed conditions." Moreover, even assuming that the <br />noise level would increase with removal of materials from the berm, <br />there was "no evidence indicating how much of a noise increase would <br />be permissible before the public health, safety, convenience or property <br />values would be impacted." Since a special permit could "be denied only <br />for the failure to meet specific standards in the regulations, and not for <br />vague or general reasons," the court concluded that the requirement of <br />the restoration condition was improper. <br />The court next agreed with the Commission's claim that the restora- <br />tion condition was integral to the approval of Martland's application for <br />a special permit. -It based this conclusion on the facts that: the Commis- <br />sion's written findings expressly provided that "all of the conditions" im- <br />posed must be satisfied (emphasis by Commission); and when Martland <br />filed a second application that sought specifically to remove the restora- <br />tion condition, the Commission unanimously rejected it. Since this inte- <br />gral condition to the special permit was invalid, then the special permit <br />was also invalid, concluded the court. <br /> <br />See also: Bethlehem Christian Fellowship, Inc. v. Planning & Zoning <br />Commission, 73 Conn. App. 442, 807 A.2d 1089, cert. denied., 262 <br />Conn. 928, 814A.2d 379 (2002), overruled in part on other grounds by (','---,',\ <br />Cambodian Buddhist Society of Connecticut, Inc. v. Planning & Zoning ) <br />Commission, 285 Conn. 381, 941 A.2d 868 (2008). <br /> <br />See also: Reid v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 235 Conn. 850, 670 A.2d <br />1271 (1996). <br /> <br />Case Note: The court also found that although there was evidence <br />that some vegetation existed on the berm, there was nothing to sup- <br />port the claim that the berm acted as a vegetative buffer. <br /> <br />Standing-Non-abutting property owners claim <br />they have standing to challenge planning <br />board decision on town-owned site <br /> <br />They cite party status and a particularized injury as a <br />resident who frequently drives by'the site <br /> <br />Citation: Nergaard v. Town of Westport Island, 2009 ME 56,2009 WL <br />1522707(Me.2009) <br /> <br />) <br /> <br />MAINE (06/02/09)-The town planned to improve its only public <br />boat-launching site (the "site"). The site was located at the intersection <br /> <br />6 <br /> <br />@ 2009 Thomson Reuters <br /> <br />60 <br />