Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/01/2004

Home

z.g. June 10, 2004--Page 3 Village of Ottawa Hills to build an addition to the front and rear of her house. The village found the application was deficient in a number of areas, most of which concerned the front addition. Correspondence regarding the deficiencies went back and forth between Afjeh and the village. She then stated she would forego the front addition, and requested a permit for the rear. On June 5, the village sent a letter informing Afjeh no permit would be issued until Afjeh ceased construction and returned the premises to their former condition. In July, Afjeh again requested a permit. The village responded no permit would issue until she complied with the June 5 letter. At]eh sued, and 'the court ruled in the village's favor. Afjeh appealed, arguing both letters Were a'mbigu6us because the state- ment "no zoning or building permits will be issued" was stated in the future tense and did not actually deny the pending permit application. DECISION: Affirmed. The letters were not ambiguous. The letters sufficiently indicated a denial of the permit application. Even if the June 5 letter could be found ambiguous, the July 23 letter clarified it. The July 23 letter was issued in specific response to Afjeh's July request for a ruling on her application for a zoning permit. The letter reiterated a per- mit would not be issued until Afjeh ceased her "illegal" construction. As Afjeh did not believe this was a valid reason to deny her application for a permit, she was required to appeal the decision to the zoning commission before continuing. see also: Quarto Mining Co. v. Foreman, 679 N.£.2d 706 (1997). see also: Dresher v. Butt, 662 N.E. 2d 264 (1996). Permit -- Concrete and electrical work done for project Construction had to be commenced within one year Citation: [n re Beckstrom; Supreme Court of Vermont, No. 2003-274 (2004) VERMONT (4/08/04) -- H.A. Manosh Corporation applied for a zoning per- mit to erect a radio tower and support building. The application described the tower as 100 feet high and the building as a "cement block structure." The zoning administrator granted the permit. However, the permit became void if construction on the project was not undertaken within one year. At the end of one year, IVlanosh had performed work on the road leading up to the site and installed underground electrical conduit. It had also cleared some o~' the area and done some subsurface concrete work. ' Neighboring property owners opposed to the project sued, arguing the per- mit had expired. The court ruled in their favor. 2004 Quinla~] PlJt}lisfling Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048. 9'/