07/01/10 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

May 10, 2010 1 Volume 41 No. 9 Zoning Bulletin to challenge the Council's decision to approve Ordinance 454 because: (1) the Citizens had alleged "personal, particularized injuries resulting from the Council's approval of the amended development"; and (2) it was "cleat that a ruling reversing the Council's decision would redress the Citizens' alleged injuries by prohibiting development." See also: Utah Chapter of Sierra Club v. Utah Air Quality Bd., 2006 UT 74,148 P.3d 960 (Utah 2006). Case Note: The court further found that the County's failure to provide a record of the administrative proceedings to the district court violated CLUMDA and precluded the court's review of the Council's decision. As such, the court did not reach the merits of the Citizens' claims. The court remanded the case to the district court with instruction to order the county to transmit the com- plete record and resolve the Citizens' challenge on its merits. Defenses to Enforcement—Town officials provide erroneous information as to. number of lots on property Property owner claims town is estopped from enforcement because of misrepresentation Citation: Sutton v. Town of Gilford, 2010 WL 1190150 (N.H. 2010) NEW HAMPSHIRE (03/30/10)—This case addressed the issue of whether a property owner could argue municipal estoppel—barring enforcement of an ordinance against her property—because of her reli- ance on misrepresentations made by town officials about the property. The Background/Facts: In 2002, Barbara Aichinger purchased lake- front property (the "Property") in the town. The Property was located in the town's Single Family Residence district. In that district, lots were required to be one acre in size. At one time, the Property was comprised of two parcels—lots 9 and 10. Lot 9, which contained a single structure garage and guest house, was 0.6 acres. Lot 10, which contained a residence, was 0.5 acres. Sometime in the 1980s, pursuant to a provisiori in the town's zoning ordinance (the "Merger Ordinance"), which merged contiguous non- conforming lots, the town merged lots 9 and 10 to create a single lot, known as lot 7. At the time of purchase, Aichinger's deed showed Pots 9 and 10 de- scribed separately. However, the town's tax map showed the Property as a single "lot 7." ® 2010 Thomson Neuters EF