Laserfiche WebLink
<br />December 25, 2009 I Vo.lume 3 I No.. 24 <br /> <br />Zo.ning Bulletin <br /> <br />in their use and enjo.yment af the affected natural resaurces." In other ( , <br />wards, challengers "must nat anly allege, but if the issue is disputed \ <br />must pro.ve, that their injury is real and different from the injury mo.st <br />members af the public face." , <br />.. , <br />Here, the caurt nated, the members af Save the Pine Bush used the <br />Pine Bush Preserve far "recreatian and to. study and enjoy the unique <br />habitat faund there." That use, faund the caurt, was repeated, nat rare, <br />or isalated. Tharaldsan's prapased hatel develapment near the Preserve, <br />and its patential harm to. wildlife in the Preserve, wauld therefare affect <br />Save the Pine Bush's members differently fram "the public at large," <br />.. faund the caurt. Accardingly, thecaurt cancluded, Save the Pine Bush <br />and its members had standing to. challenge the rezaning in this case. <br /> <br />See also.: Society of Plastics Industry, Inc. v. CQunty of Suffolk, 77 <br />N.Y.2d 761, 570 N.Y.S.2d 778, 573 N.E.2d 1034,21 Envtl. L. Rep. <br />21413 (1991). .. <br /> <br />See alsa:' Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 92 S. Ct. 1361, 31 L. <br />'Ed. 2d 636, 3 Env't. Rep. Cas. (BNA) 2039,1 Envtl. L. Rep. 29001, 2 <br />Envtl. L. Rep. 20192 (1972). <br /> <br />Case Note: The caurt also. cancluded that Save the Pine Bush's ('~"'..\..'I'I <br />challenge failed an the merits. The city, faund thecaurt, "did nat I <br />.. vialate SEQRA when, in examining the enviranmental impact af <br />the zaningchange . . , it facused its" attentian the areas af majar <br />environmental cancern." The city was "nat required to. scrutinize <br />every passibleenvitanmental issue, and the failure af the [c]ity's <br />[EIS] to. discuss the pas sible impact af rezoning an" certam rare <br />species was therefare nat a fatal flaw." <br /> <br />Zoning Amendment-Affect on Rights-After <br />issuing building permit to developer, town <br />amends zoning ordinance and prohibits <br />developer's proposed use <br /> <br />Developer argues its proposed use should be allowed under <br />- doctrine of equitable estoppel <br /> <br />Citatian: Martel Inv. Group, LLC v. Town of Richmond, 2009 WL <br />3734120 (R.I. 2009)) <br /> <br />RHODE ISLAND (11/09/09)-ln September 2005, Martel Invest- <br />ment Group, Inc. purchased a parcel af real estate (the "Property") in <br />the taWn. The Property was the farmer site af a Bickfard's restaurant. <br /> <br />6 <br /> <br />@ 2009Thomso.n Reuters <br /> <br />80 <br /> <br />i <br />I <br />I <br />! <br />i <br />, <br />i <br />r <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />, I <br /> <br />( )1 <br />\, <br /> <br />I <br />i <br />! <br />! <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />.. I <br />I <br />I <br />