Laserfiche WebLink
7,.g. <br /> <br />November 25, 2002 -- Page 5 <br /> <br />demolished and replaced With major business building developments, all with <br />the city's approval and encouragement. The owners claimed the subject pr~op-. <br />erty was designated as a historical landmark without prior notice to them and <br />an opportunity to be heard. They also claimed the moratorium adversely af- <br />fected the marketability and economic use of the property. The owners noted a <br />prospective buyer rescinded an offer of $114 million when the historical land- <br />mark designation became known. <br /> The owners contended their efforts, to have the DLC remove the designa- <br />tion were unsuccessful..Further, theY. claimed their civil rights were violated <br />because, had they not bee. nHispanic, they would have received-proper notice <br />and been given an opportunity to oppose the designation. <br /> The city asked for judgment without a trial, claiming the owners' laWsuit <br />was barred by the. ti:me limits for filing such claims. <br />DECISION: Judgment granted. <br /> The claims were barred because they were filed after the applicable time <br />limit expired. <br /> The city provided evidence the owners were told the DLC had initiated the <br />procedure to establish a historic overlay of the subject property in 1996. There <br />was also notice of a zoning request on the property at that time. <br /> The court noted the applicable statute of limitations was two years, and the <br />owners did not file their lawsuit until Nov. 13,2000, si~maificant!y beyond the <br />two-year time limit had already expired. Thusl the owners~ claims were time-barred. <br />Citation: Ramirez v. The City of Dallas, U.S. District Court for the Northern <br />District of Texas, Dallas Div., No, 3:00-CV-248]-D (2002). <br />see also: Fontenot v. Upjohn Co., 780 F. 2d 1190 (1986). <br />see also: Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477' U.S. 317, ]06 S. Ct. :25¥8, 9! L. Ed. 2d <br />265 (1986). <br /> <br />· Easements -- Property owner seeks to build riding stable <br /> Neighbors object, claiming easement was already overburdened <br /> <br /> MASSACHUSETTS (10/9/02) --. Wylie sought to build a riding stable and <br /> related structures on four contiguous lots (three lower lots and one larger upper <br /> lot). A 40-foot' easement existed over a neighbor's property, connecting the <br /> three lower lots to the upper lot. The easement was necessary for access from <br /> the lower three lots to the public. Way. <br /> The plans included a one-story riding arena, a one-story barn-witt~ a <br /> caretaker's apartment, and a onerstory ranch style home. There would also be <br /> 15 parking spaces beside the barn and seven fenced paddocks, of various sizes <br /> and an outdoor sand r/ding fink. <br /> Wylie intended to construct a 20-foot~wide gravel, road over the '40-foot <br /> easement. A/though he:wanted to install lights, Wylie planned to plant, shrub- <br /> bery to minimize the effects of the lighting on the neighbors. <br /> The board of appeals ~anted' Wylie a variance from the zoning bylaw <br /> <br />29 <br /> <br /> <br />