Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/06/1999

Home

Page 6--June 10, 1999 Z.B. presumably, received income from the property. That the variance would allow the Rosses to increase the return they received from their property did not, however, mean their property couldn't yield a reasonable return without the variance. Goldstein v. City of South Portland, Supreme ,Judicial Court of Maine, No. Cum-98-595 (1999). see alsoJ Twiggv. Town of Kennebunk, 662 A.2d 914.(1995). see also: Leadbetter v. Ferris, 485 A.2d 225 (1984). Appeal -- Can abutter challenge permit for low-income housing? MASSACHUSETTS (5/6/99) -- The Gloucester Housing Authority wanted to build low-income housing. Bell was trustee of a trust that owned property abutting the authority's property. The authority applied for a comprehensive permit for the project, and the zoning appeals board scheduled a public hearing. The board didn't hold the hearing within 30 days as required by state law, so the authority's application was considered automatically approved. Bell appealed to court. He asked the court to void the authority's per- mit, claiming he never had a chance to oppose the low-income housing project because the zoning board never held a public hearing. According to Bell, the authority's application didn't address whether the proposed hous- ing was compatible with the neighborhood. He also claimed the proposal didn't provide for the "highest and best" use of public land, didn't address other potential low-income housing solutions, and didn't conform to the neighborhood's layout. The board asked the court to dismiss Bell's appeal, arguing he had no right to challenge the authority's permit because he wasn't "aggrieved" by the permit's issuance. Bell responded that he was aggrieved by the permit because his property abutted the housing authority's proposed location. The court awarded the board judgment without a trial, finding Bell had no right to challenge the authority.'s comprehensive permit because he didn't show the proposed project would in any way affect the trust's interests. Bell appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. BelI had no right to challenge the authority's comprehensive permit. Bell didn't show the permit's issuance violated any legally protected property interest. He merely claimed the authority's proposal didn't con- sider whether the project was compatible with the neighborhood and didn't show the project would be the best use of public land. Even if these claims weren't mere speculation, Bell had no right to challenge the permit because