Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/07/2012

Home

Zoning Bulletin April 25, 2012 'Volume 6 ( No. 8 Here, the court found that the City's Ordinance enacting the downtown dis- trict as historic was prospective and general in nature. The Ordinance purported to regulate only future conduct to be consistent with the provisions of the his- toric preservation ordinance; it did not impose fines for past behavior or require past improvements to be modified in any way. Moreover, the court found the Ordinance was generally and equally applicable to all property owners within its boundaries. "Merely because the historic district [did] not encompass the en- tirety of [the City] [did] not diminish its general character," said the court. Accordingly, the court concluded that the City's enactment of the Ordinance was a legislative act which did not fall within the purview of the due process requirements of the 14th Amendment. On this ground, the court reversed the cir- cuit court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Bradford, and granted sum- mary judgment to NAHPC. See also: Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 70 S. Ct. 652, 94 L. Ed. 865 (1950). See also: L C & S, Inc. v. Warren County Area Plan Com'n, 244 E3d 601 (7th Cir. 2001). See also: Krimendahl v. Common Council of City of Noblesville, 256 Ind. 191, 267 N.E.2d 547 (1971). Case Note: The appellate court also found that Bradford's replacement of the wood siding with vinyl siding was a visible, conspicuous change in the exterior of the appearance, requiring a COA under the City's historic pres- ervation ordinance. Case Note: Bradford had also asked the court to find that the Ordinance ,was a regulatory taking of its property. The appellate court refused to do so, finding the Ordinance did not prohibit improvements or maintenance on existing structures; it merely regulated the manner in which the improve- ments or maintenance was to be performed. Standing —Abutting Property Owners Challenge Issuance of Building Permit to Neighbor Neighbor argues abutters are not "persons aggrieved" and therefore lack standing to bring challenge Citation: 81 Spooner Road, LLC v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Brookline, 461 Mass. 692, 2012 WL 899046 (2012) MASSACHUSETTS (03/20/12)—This case addressed the requirements for standing as a "person aggrieved" to maintain an action for judicial review of a deci- sion of a zoning board of appeals. It also addressed what evidence a defendant must © 2012 Thomson Reuters 9