My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/01/2014
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
2014
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/01/2014
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 10:20:59 AM
Creation date
5/28/2014 1:28:41 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
05/01/2014
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
139
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Zoning Bulletin April 10, 2014 1 Volume 8 1 Issue 7 <br />plan approval, the chairperson was not authorized to sign the site plan. Ac- <br />cordingly, the court concluded, the Developers could not establish that they <br />had vested rights to develop the Madison Green project under the site plan <br />approval. <br />Further, the court said, the Developers could not ground their claim of <br />common -law vesting upon reliance on the limited permits that were issued <br />to them because none of those permits —which authorized demolition of a <br />single - family house and water tanks, erection of a sign, and regrading and <br />clearing — either singly or together amounted to the Town's approval of the <br />Madison Green project. Thus, said the court, the Developers' expenditures <br />and construction in reliance on those lirnited permits could not satisfy the <br />prerequisite for common -law vesting of the right to construct the entire <br />project. <br />See also: Town of Orangetown v. Magee, 88 N.Y 2d 41, 643 N.Y.S.2d 21, <br />665 N.E.2d 1061 (1996). <br />Procedure — Neighbors appeal <br />building commissioner decision <br />more than 30 days after the <br />decision is issued, and thus outside <br />of the statutory appeals period <br />Neighbors claim their appeal is timely as it is <br />within 30 days of their adequate notice of the <br />decision <br />Citation: Miles - Matthiass v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Seekonk, 84 Mass. <br />App. Ct. 778, 2014 WL 503593 (2014) <br />MASSACHUSETTS (02/11/14) —This case addressed the issue of <br />whether neighbors' appeal of a decision of a town building commissioner <br />was timely. In addressing that issue, the case discusses what constitutes ad- <br />equate notice so as to start the statutory time period for appeal. <br />The Background /Facts: John Dias ( "Dias ") owned land off Ledge Road <br />in Seekonk (the "Town "). Dias proposed to divide his land into six lots with <br />access to lots 1 -3 via a common driveway off Ledge Road. That driveway <br />already serviced Dias's lot 4, as well as the lot of Paul Miles- Matthias and <br />Linda Coffin (hereinafter the "Neighbors "), and another neighbor's property. <br />Dias's plan was endorsed by the Town's planning board as an approval - <br />not- required plan ( "ANR ") pursuant to Massachusetts statutory law, G.L. c. <br />41, § 81P. Dias then applied to the Town's building commissioner for <br />authority to install the common driveway extending from Ledge Drive to <br />service lots 1 -3. <br />© 2014 Thomson Reuters 7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.