Laserfiche WebLink
40 <br />November 25, 2010! Volume 41 No. 22 - Zoning Bulletin <br />cannot uphold an application containing an integral, illegal condition, <br />that "has no bearing on whether an administrative agency subsequently <br />can excise the illegal condition and approve the remainder of the appli- <br />cation." Thus, here, since the Bond Condition was found to be illegal <br />and integral to the original application, "the court was unable to sever <br />the illegal condition to uphold the remainder of the application." Still, <br />contrary to the Neighbor's arguments, the Commission was free to "sev- <br />er the unlawful condition and approve a modified application." To find <br />otherwise would be an "impermissible judicial usurpation of the admin- <br />istrative functions of the authority," said the court. • <br />See also: DeBeradinis v. Zoning Com'n of City of Norwalk, 228 Conn. <br />187, 635 A.2d 1220 (1994). <br />See also: Thorne v. Zoning Commission of Town of Old Saybrook, 178 <br />Conn. 198, 423 A.2d 861 (1979). <br />Case Note: The Neighbors had also argued that the Commission's <br />approval of the modified application was void because new Com- <br />mission members had voted on the modified application without <br />having attended the original hearings. The appellate court disagreed. <br />It held that Commission members that were not on the Commission <br />when the original application was approved were permitted to vote <br />on the modified application, "provided that they were sufficiently <br />informed of issues to make a wise and proper judgment." <br />Use — Landowner seeks building permit for <br />horse boarding enterprise <br />Neighbor argues proposed use constitutes prohibited <br />"commercial recreation" <br />Citation: Rudolph v. Golick, 2010 ME 106, 2010 WL 4183685 (Me. 2010) <br />MAINE (10/26/10) —This case addressed whether the operation of <br />a horse boarding enterprise constituted: "animal husbandry," a permit- <br />ted use under the town zoning laws; or "commercial recreation," a use <br />barred under the zoning laws. <br />The Background/Facts: In July 2009, Alan L. Golick and Lisa K. <br />Thompson (collectively, "Golick ") submitted a building permit appli- <br />cation to the town's Code Enforcement Officer (the "CEO "). Golick <br />sought to construct a "Horse Barn/Riding Arena." Golick planned to use <br />the building to board others' horses and provide an indoor riding arena i <br />to exercise the horses. <br />The CEO issued a building permit to Golick. <br />4 - - ©2010 Thomson Reuters <br />