02/04/10 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

December 25, 2009\ Volume 3 I No. 24 Zoning Bulletin The Supreme Court of Rhode Island also rejected Martel's argu- ment. It held that the town was not equitably estopped from enforcing the Amendment against MatteI. It was accurate, explained the Court, that "building permits lawfully issued for a permitted use" could not be revoked because of a subse- quent amendment to the zoning ordinance. Here, however; the building permit was not lawfully issued. The Ordinance required a development plan review before a building permit could lawfully issue. Martel had not complied with that mandate as it had failed to file a development plan review before applying for the building permit. Since the town's building officer could "not act beyond the authority granted to him ... by law," he could not have lawfully issued the building permit to Mar- tel. Since the doctrine of equitable estoppel "did not apply to instances in which a building official acts outside [his authority under] the zoning ordinance," the doctrine of equitable estoppel did not apply. In other words, as a building-permit applicant, Martel was "responsible for en- suring.that his ... application conform[ed] to the [Ordinance]." Martel's failure to comply with the Ordinance was neither "mitigated nor ex- cused by the mere fact that the town building official also erred." See also: Town ofJohnston v. Pezza, 723 A.2d 278 (R.!. 1999). >.) / \. . Case Note: Martel had also argued that the Amendment could not . (') be enforced against it because it had a "vested right in its proposed use." Under the town's Ordinance, applications for development that were "substantially complete" prior to enactment of a zoning amendment were considered to be "vested." Martel did not sub- mit its request for deyelopment-plan review until January 30, 2006. This was after the town had adopted the Amendment. "As such, Martel's application was not substantially complete before the' pro- hibi~ion [on adult businesses] was enacted... ," found the court. Therefore, Martel did not have a vested right in its proposed use. Interim Zoning-County adopts interim zoning to preclude proposed mining operations Mining operator argues there was no "emergency" to justify interim zoning , Citation: Liberty Cove, Inc. v. Missoula County, 2009 MT 377, 2009 WL 3764086 (Mont. 2009) MONTANA (11/10/09)-Liberty Cove, Inc. owned property (the \ ;)1 "Property") in the county. In April 2006, Liberty Cove entered into a purchase agreement with JTL Group, Iilc. JTL proposed to establish "a 8 @ 2009 Thomson Reuters 82 I ./