Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning Bulletin September 25, 2016 1 Volume 10 1 Issue 18 <br /> not bind the ZBA,noted the court. <br /> Case Note: <br /> Miller had also brought a declaratory judgment count, asking the court to invalidate <br /> the SettlementAgreernent between the Town and 110,Inc. The district court had found <br /> that claim was rendered moot by the ZBA's ultimate decision.On appeal,Miller argued <br /> it was not moot because the ZBA decision and the Settlement Agreement had indepen- <br /> dent force and terms that were not coextensive. The First Circuit concluded that <br /> whether the ZBA's decision nullified the Settlement Agreement was a state law ques- <br /> tion that was better suited for state court to address.The court ordered remand of Mil- <br /> ler's remaining claim to state court. <br /> i <br /> 1 <br /> I I <br /> Due Process/Conformity to <br /> Enabling Statute-Landowner <br /> i <br /> challenges town's adoption of <br /> zoning amendments <br /> Landowner claims a constitutionally protected <br /> property interest in demanding the town's <br /> compliance with the state-mandated.ordinance 4 <br /> adoption procedures <br /> j Citation: Gould v. Town of Monkton, 2016 VT 84, 2016 WL 4061878(Vt. F <br /> 2016) <br /> i <br /> VERMONT(07/29/16)—This case addressed the issue of whether a land- <br /> owner had a constitutionally protected due process property interest in a town's <br /> i strict compliance with a state statute concerning adoption of zoning <br /> ordinances. It also addressed the issue of whether a landowner's permit ap- <br /> plication,made at the time new zoning regulations were in effect,could serve <br /> to retroactively vest a constitutionally protected due process property interest <br /> in a town's application of the prior zoning regulations. <br /> The Background/Facts: In January 2012, after multiple public hearings, <br /> the selectboard of the Town of Monkton(the"Town") approved a new set of <br /> l zoning regulations, which were called the "Unified Planning Document" <br /> ("UPD").After approving the UPD, the selectboard submitted it to the Town <br /> clerk to be voted on at a special election by town residents. Before the town <br /> vote was held, the selectboard made revisions to the UPD without notice or a <br /> ' l <br /> public hearing. The revised UPD was submitted to the Town clerk. The town k <br /> vote resulted in the UPD being approved by a vote of 130 in favor, 128 against. <br /> Subsequent to the passage of the UPD, Donald Gould ("Gould") alleged <br /> ©2016 Thomson Reuters 9 <br /> I <br /> r <br /> i <br />