Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/05/2004

Home

Page 4 -- July 10, 2004 The board of supervisors held a hearing on the application. Although there was discussion involving how the nutrients would be spread, untimely waste dispersion during the off season and downsizing the' hog operation, the board of supervisors den/ed the application without stating its reasons. Mogensen sued, and the court ruled in favor of the board of supervisors. It found Mogensen could not file a lawsuit until he had appealed the board of supervisors' decision to the board of adjustment, which was considered the final authority on the matter. Mogensen appealed, arguing he could immediately file a lawsuit challeng- ing the board of supervisors' decision. · DECISION: A~rmed. Mogensen had to appeal to the board of adjustment before he could file a lawsuit. Considering the relevant statutory provisions, zoning regulations, ann leg- islative history, it was clear the board of supervisors was an administrative agency and the legislature intended appeals from the board of supervisors to be taken to the board of adjustment. Importantly, a member of the board of supervisors could not simultaneously serve on the board of adjustment. This was becauge he or she could face the problem of ruling on the appeal of a decision he or she might have made. Clearly, the legislature considered these to be two agencies with very different purposes. A lawsuit could only be brought against a judgment or final order made by any thbunal, board, or officer exercising judicial functions. Since the legisla- ture considered the board of supervisors to be an administrative agency and the board of adjustment a body performing judicial functions, appeals from the board of supervisors had to be taken to the board of adjustment before a lawsuit could be filed. see also: Salaz. ar v. Scotts Bluff County, 665 N.W. 2d 659 (2003). see also: Niewohner v. Antelope County Board of Adjustment, 668 N. W. 2d 258 (2003). Planning -- District designed to protect environment also provides for at'fordable housing Builders argue affordable housing has nothing to do with environment Citation: ~ome B~dlders Association of Cape Cod Inc. v. Cape Cod Commis~'ion, S~¢reme J~tdicial C~)urr of 3/lassach~set~s, No. SJC-09 I 7} (2004) MASSACHUSETTS (.05/19/04) -- The BarnstabIe town council voted to cre- ate a d/strict of critical planning concern. The d/strict was created to-address the rare of residential development and the amount of affordable housing in the area. Specifically, the distr/ct sought to limit further development while at 2004 Quinian Pubiisihing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more tnformaiion please call (617) 542-0048.