Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/05/2010

Home

May 25, 2010 1 Volume 4 I No. 10 Zoning Bulletin had voted on each of the seven Section A criteria and found that crite- ria 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7 were not met. However, the court found that the meeting minutes did "not reflect which of the at least sixteen wetland impacts... the [B]oard considered to be problematic with respect to any particular Section A criteria that the [Booard voted was not satisfied." For example, the Board found that Motorsports' Project failed to meet criteria 1. Again, criteria 1 said that the WCO shall prevent the develop- ment of structures in wetlands which will contribute to pollution. How- ever, in finding this failure, the Board "did not identify which of the at least sixteen wetland impacts would be unlawfully polluted, or how the fill would constitute `pollution' within the meaning of the WCO." Fur- thermore, the court found that the minutes showed "that virtually no discussion occurred prior to the ]B]oard's vote that Motorsports' appli- cation failed to satisfy several other criteria." The court concluded that: "casting separate votes on each of the seven Section A criteria with respect to the [P]roject as a whole, without pro- viding reasons, explanations or findings directed to adversely affected wetland areas or buffer zones, does not constitute an adequate statement for the grounds of disapproval necessary to comply with RSA 676:4, I(h)." Because the November 8 Board meeting minutes did not satisfy RSA. 676:4, I(h), the court vacated the Board's denial and remanded the matter back to the Board for further consideration. See also: Patenaude v. Town of Meredith, 118 N.H. 616, 392 A.2d 582 (1978). See also: Route 12 Books & Video v. Town of Troy, 149 N.H. 569, 825 A.2d 493 (2003). Case Note: In its decision, the court also addressed several other ar- guments from the Intervenors. Those arguments are not detailed in this summary. Uses —Family scatters ashes of deceased relatives on hilltop With the land for sale, family members dispute whether that site constitutes a "cemetery" Citation: Shilling v. Baker, 2010 WL 1491405 (Va. 2010) VIRGINIA (04/15/10)—This case involved the issue of whether a plot of land constituted a "cemetery" use. The Background/Facts: Oliver Baker and Alice Baker, the grandpar- ents of Kathryn Shilling and Brian Baker, had owned a tract of land [the "Baker Property") in the county. In 1949 and in the 1980s and 1990s, 6 © 2010 Thomson Reuters 154