Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/04/1999

Home

' Z.B. March 25, 1999 Page 3 for a temporary order prohibiting the township from enforcing its zoning ordi- nance pending the outcome of the trial. DECISION: Temporary order granted. ReMed could move three additional residents into the home pending the outcome of the trial. ReMed was likely to win its lawsuit because the accommodation it sought was likely both necessary and reasonable under the Act. The Act prohibited enforcement of zoning ordinances in a manner that denied people with dis- abilities access to housing on par with those who were not disabled and gave the township an affirmative duty to .make reasonable accommodations. The board didn't show the requested accommodation wasn't reasonable; in fact, the board expressly found the use of the home by eight residents wouldn't have a substantial and negative impact on the purposes behind the township's zoning regulations. ReMed would be irreparably harmed if the court didn't temporarily order the township to refrain from enforcing its zoning ordinance against ReMed. ReMed was los. ing money from .operating with only five residents and would be unable to continue to operate the house without an order requiring a reason- able accommodation. The result would be that all five current residents would ultimately be unable to live in the house: see also: Bryant Woods Inn Inc. v. Howard County, 124 F.3d 597 (1997). see als°: Hovsons Inc. v. Township of Brick, 89 E3d 1096 (!996). Immunity-- Owner sues city officials after neighbor cuts down hi~ own trees Citation: Sadlowski v. City of Leominster Planning Diiector's, .Superior Court of Massachusetts, at. Worchester, Nos. 98-1500 & 98-1777B (1999) Sadlowski owned property in the city of Leominster, Mass. Sadlowski's neighbor cut down some trees on his own property. According to Sadlowski, this deprived him of his privacy and decreased the market value of his home. Sadlowski sued the city's planning officials and its building inspector. He claimed his neighbor's actions violated subdivision and special permit conditions and the city officials were liable because of their negligence in enforcing zoning regulations. He also claimed the officials failed to do anything about the height of his neighbor's house, which he said violated the city zoning ordinance. The officials claimed they had immunity. State law gave public employees immunity for all discretionary actions, regardless of whether they abused their discretion. State law also provided immunity for the failure to. inspect or for negligently inspecting any property in search of zoning or code violations. Sadlowski argued the officials weren't entitled to immunity because they/n- tentionally failed to investigate and enforce zoning regulations, which he appar- ently claimed created a special relationship between himself and the city officials. The city officials asked the court to dismiss all Sadlowski's claims. DECISION: Claims dismissed.