Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/01/2004

Home

Z.B. February 25, 2004 -- Page 7 The neighbors sued, and the court ruled in their favor. It found a "rural district not zoned" area was not an unzoned area, but a zoning distr'/ct subject to the town's zoning code. Consequently, it reversed the board's decision find- ing the maintenance building/container storage component of the facility a permitted use in the district. ' Waste Management appealed, arguing the reversal of the board's decision was wrong. During the appeal, the town enacted new laws listing the permit-- ted uses in a "rural district not zoned." There was no explicit provision permit- ting the siting of facilities such as Waste Management's. DECISION: Dismissed. Since the law had changed, the court could no longer make a decision. As a general rule, the court must apply the law that exists at the'time of its decision. Since the law now listed what uses were .permitted in the district, any de- termination of the board's earlier decision was. unnecessary and nonbinding. Consequently, Waste Management could not seek approval of its facility by trying to reinstate the board's findings. Citation: Orsi v. Board of Appeals of the Town of Bethlehem, Supreme Court of New York, App. Div., 3rd. Dept., No. 9_3888 (2004). see also: Ronsvalle v. Tot-man, 303 A.D.2d 897 (2003). see also: Alscot Investing Corporation v. Incorporated Village of Roclcville Center, 477 N.E. 2d 1083 (]985). Subdivision -- Landowner conveys parcels as ~fts and to abutters Town finds his intent is to avoid subdivision ordinance MAINE (01/06/04) -- Tinsman owned Namsnit Inc. On one day, several land transfers occurred between Tinsman and Namsnit Inc. without consideration. At the time of the conveyances, Tinsman and Namsnit abutted each other. Several days later, Tinsman divided his land further and conveyed parceis to his parents and his wife as gifts. He then entered into contraCts with Cloutier Construction to build homes on the now separated parcels. After all of the conveyances, Tinsman applied to the town of Falmouth Planning Board for private way approval for the parcels. Under state law, certain land transfers, including gifts to relatives or trans- fers to abutters, did not operate to create a subdivision. However, if the intent of the transferor was to avoid the objectives of the subdivision ordinance, then the exemption did not apply. After a public hearing, the board found Tinsman intended to avoid the subdivision ordinance and the lots were part of an unapproved subdivision. Consequently, they could not be served by a private way without proper subdi- vision review and approval. Tinsman sued, and the court affirmed the board's decision. Tinsman appealed, arguing he did not intend to avoid the subdivision ordinance.