Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/08/1999

Home

Z.B. September 25, 1999 Page 3 Conditional Approval Building inspector says it's not his : responsibility to enforce variance condition MASSACHUSETI'S (8/26/99) -- The Casales applied for a variance to build a single-family home on property they owned next to the Wymans. The zoning board granted the variance on the condition the Casales didn't restrict drainage on the Wymans' property. They began building. The Casales installed a six-inch culvert on their property, which apparently restricted d/ainage on the Wymans' land. The building inspector allegedly or- dered the Casales to fix the restriction, which they attempted to do. According to the Wymans, the Casales later filled in a low area of their driveway, but this further restricted drainage On their 15roperty. The Wymans claimed the Casales violated the variance condition and caused their property to flood. The~, stied the building inspector and the zoning board to enforce the variance condition. They also claimed the inspector and board violated the Wymans' constitutional rights by not enforcing the condition. The building inspector and the board asked the court to dismiss the com- plaint, arguing the Casales' violation of a variance condition was a private matter that the inSpector had no duty to correct. The court dismissed the complaint, finding the alleged violation of a vari- ance condition didn't appear to violate any zoning o?dinance Or bylaw. The Wymans appealed. DECISION: Reversed in part and returned t° the' lower court. The Wymans' constifutional claims were unfounded, so they were dismissed. The case was returned for the board to determine whether the Casales indeed violated the variance condition. The Wymans argued the building inspector and the board violated their constitutional rights. At worst, the building inspector and the board may have misconceived their duties, so the constitutional clain~s had to fail. Adherence to a variance condition, however, wasn't a private matter -- it was a matter of public interest. Whether the Casales violated the condition had to be determined. If so, it was the building inspector's responsibility to enforce the condition. Citation: Wyman v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Grafton, Appeals Court of Massachusetts, No. 96-P-296 (1999). see also: Freeman v. Planning Board of West Boylston, 646 N.E.2d 139 (1995). Rezoning -- Developer says rezoning is invalid because city's comprehensive plan was incomplete IDAHO (8/12/99) -- Sprenger, Grubb & Associates Inc. (developer) owned property in the city of Halley. The parcel had been zoned for business since the city annexed it in 1973. In 1993, the city passed an ordinance rezoning the property to "limited business," and the developer appealed. A court eventually found the ordinance