Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning Bulletin September 10, 2015 1 Volume 9 1 Issue 17 <br />waters and would have a reduced amount of rights enjoyed by other prop- <br />erties in similar areas with the Critical Area, found the court. • <br />Finally, fifth, the court found that evidence supported a finding that the <br />granting of the variance would have no adverse environmental impact and <br />would be "in harmony with the general spirit and intent of the critical area <br />program." Configuration of Schwalbach's proposed structure would elimi- <br />nate adverse effect on water quality, and Schwalbach could mitigate any <br />adverse impact with new plantings. <br />Finally, disagreeing with ACT's contention that the BZA's decision <br />must be reversed in the absence of some "unequivocal indication that the <br />BZA applied the statutory presumption," the court concluded: "There is no <br />reason to require that an applicant who has overcome his or her respective <br />burdens as to all of the variance criteria must also come forward with ad- <br />ditional evidence to rebut the statutory presumption." Here, said the court, <br />the BZA's finding that the variance was in harmony with the general spirit <br />and intent of the Critical Area Program was the same as a finding that <br />Schwalbach had overcome the presumption of nonconformance. To <br />require the "sterile formality" of restating what was already found in dif- <br />ferent language was a waste of resources, said the court. Even assuming <br />the BZA erred by not making a separate written finding, the court said that <br />did not require reversal of the decision. <br />See also: Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Inc. v. DCwDutchship Island, <br />LLC, 439 Md. 588, 97A.3d 135 (2014). <br />See also: Richard Roeser Professional Builder, Inc. v. Anne Arundel <br />County, 368 Md. 294, 793 A.2d 545 (2002). <br />Standing/Permit/Remedy—Town <br />sues property owners for <br />constructing structures without <br />zoning permits <br />While litigation is pending, property owners <br />continue and complete construction of <br />structures <br />Citation: Town of North Elba v. Grimditch, 13 NY..S.3d 601 (App. Div. <br />3d Dep't 2015) <br />NEW YORK (07/02/15)—This case addressed the issue of whether <br />neighbors had standing to challenge a property owners' purported zoning <br />violation. It also addressed the issue of whether construction of a structure <br />without a permit was, under the circumstances, a prior nonconforming use. <br />© 2015 Thomson Reuters 9 <br />