Laserfiche WebLink
October 10, 2003 -- Page 3 <br /> <br /> the commission stated it would "sift the sand" to find reasons to justify the <br /> decision. <br /> Van Vactor sued, and the cour~ ruled in favor of the commission. <br /> Van Vactor appealed, arguing the commission's decision was arbitrary and <br /> capricious. <br /> DECISION: Affirmed. <br /> Although the commission's comments did not make the decision arbitrary <br />· and capricious, the court chastised the commission for saying ~t was sifting <br /> the sand." <br /> The approval of a plat meeting the requirements of the applicable ordi- <br /> nance was a ministerial act, not a discretionary one. <br /> In the future, the commission should avoid such comments and more accu- <br /> rately characterize the portions of the ordinance upon which it relies in ks <br /> review of subdivision proposals. Failure to remember its ministerial role. opens <br /> the commission's decisions to criticism and creates the appearance of impro- <br /> priety. <br />Citation: Van Vacror Farms [nc. v. Marshall County P'lan Commission, Court <br />of Appeals of Indiana, 3rd. Dist., No. 50AO3-O209-CV-326 (2003). <br />see also: Department of Natural Resources v. Indiana Coal Council [nc., 542 <br />XE. 2d 1000 (1989). <br />see also: Brant v. Custom Design Constructors Corporation, 677 N.£.2d 92 <br />(1997). <br /> <br />Special Permit -- Zoning decision based on neighborhood aesthetics <br />Court disagrees with board on amount of negative effects <br /> <br />MASSACHUSETTS (08/26/03) -- Bdtton lived on the seashore in a historic <br />neighborhood of small homes on small lots. Because the home stood on one of <br />the lots closest to the ocean, half of it stood on pilings extending seaward of the <br />high water mark. He sought special permission to build an eight-foot high sec- <br />ond-story addition on the landward side. <br /> The Zoning Board of Appeals of Gloucester found the addition would im- <br />pact bay views and be out of character with the small waterfront homes in the <br />surrounding neighborhood. Based on these concerns, the board did not <br />prove a special permit for the addition. <br /> Britton appealed. The court reversed the board's decision. Although it <br />agreed the addition would affect bay views, it found the effect would be <br />minimal and the addition would be consistent with the t6ne and character of <br />the neighborhood. <br /> The board appealed. <br />DECISION: Reversed. <br /> The board could properly base its decision on these aesthetic concerns. <br /> Although the court found the addition would not create any additional noises <br /> <br />117 <br /> <br /> <br />