Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/03/2016

Home

K p 2 September 25, 2016 1 Volume 10 1 Issue 18 Zoning Bulletin Further,rejecting James'second argument,the court also held that Charles, as a cotenant of the property owned by tenancy-in-common, could seek the area variance without approval (and names on the application form) of the other cotenants(James and Douglas).The court found that the City ordinance did not require consent of all owners of the property in order to submit a vari- ance application, but only required application submission by "an owner" of the property. Moreover, noted the court, Charles, as a tenant-in-common had (as each of the three brothers did)"a separate and distinct title"held"indepen- dently of the other cotenants," so that"[e]ach cotenant's interest [could] be transferred, devised or encumbered separately and without the consent of the other cotenants."Thus, concluded the court, if Charles'interest as a cotenant could be transferred,devised, or encumbered without the consent of the other cotenants (i.e., his brothers), certainly the area variance could be sought here without their approval. See also: Koster a Boudreaux, 11 Ohio App. 3d 1, 463 N.E.2d 39(6th Dist. Lucas County 1982). Notice/Due Process—Abutting property owner appeals town's determination that neighbor's proposed use is lawful Appellant argues that town's failure to enforce zoning laws violated his property interest in such enforcement, thus violating his due process rights. Citation:Miller v. Town of Wenham Massachusetts, 2016 WL 4206375(1st Cir. 2016) The First Circuit has jurisdiction over Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island. FIRST CIRCUIT(MASSACHUSETTS) (08/10/16)-This case addressed the issue of whether an abutting property owner had a procedural due process right in the enforcement of zoning regulations such that his constitutional right was violated when town officials entered into a settlement agreement recogniz- ing the lawfulness of a proposed use which the abutting property owner as- serted was unlawful. The Background/Facts: 110, Inc. sought to operate a substance abuse treatment facility on property in a residential zoning district in the Town of Wenham (the "Town"). 110, Inc. maintained that it did not need to secure a special permit,variance,or any other discretionary approval from the Town to operate such a facility. It claimed that its proposed use would.be by right under the so-called Dover Amendment,Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 40A, §3. The 6 ©2016 Thomson Reuters