Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/04/1996

Home

.Page 61--- May 1996 Z.B. contina, ed to store fuel in the tanks, the neighbors and town building inspector gave testimony that supported the lower court's conclusion. Bartlett v. Board of Appeals of Lakeville, 505 N.E. 2d 193 (1987). Town of Bridgewater v. Chuckran, 217 N. E.2d 726 (1966). Lots--i Owner Claims Statute Doesn't Apply to Division of Lots Ahlgren v. Pierce County, 543 N. W. 2d 812 (Wisconsin) 1995 Ahlgren owned land in the town of Clifton, Wis., that he wanted to divide in two. The property was part of an assessor's plat. Ahlgren asked the Pierce County Zoning Office to split the property and filed a certified survey map to support t~he request. The ]Pierce County Land Use Management Committee denied the request. The committee concluded a certified survey map was not the proper way to divide a 10t contained in an assessor's plat. It said the proper way was to amend the assessor's plat following the procedures in the governing statute. Ahlg~en asked a court to review the decision and order the committee to approve the division. He admitted a certified survey map was not the correct way to amend an assessor's plat, but said he did not have to follow the proce- dures for amending an assessor's plat. According to Ahlgren, because he was just splittihg the lot in two-- not changing its outer boundaries-- the action he requested ;was not an "amendment" of the assessor's plat under the statute. The court affirmed the committee's decision and dismissed Ahlgren's case. Ahlgr~n appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. The lower court properly affirmed the committee's decision. Ahlgren's request to divide the lot was an amendment of the assessor's plat. Dictionaries defined the word "amendment" as the "act of amending esp. for the better," and"'[t]o change or modify for the better. To alter by modification, deletion, or addition." Because Ahlgren wanted to change one lot into two, it was an amend- ment governed by statutory procedures. Hayne U Progressive Northern Insurance Co., 339 N. W. 2d 588 (1983). Appeal -- Neighbors Present Court With Only Part of Board's Decision Time Enough Inc. v. Town of Standish, 670 A.2d 918 (Maine) 1996 Halle wanted to put a mobile home on property in a rural district of the town of Startdish, Maine. He needed a variance from the town's setback require- ments, which the town Board of Zoning Appeals granted after a hearing. Halle's neighbors and Time Enough Inc., which owned an abutting lot, appealed the board's decision. Because those people did not get notice of the first hearing,I the board held another. The neighbors presented evidence oppos- ing the variance; Halle presented nothing new. Without objection from either side, the board considered evidence from the original hearing. The board again granted Hallethe variance, stating its findings from the original hearing remained unchanged. '7'7