Laserfiche WebLink
February 25, 2017 I Volume 11 I Issue 4 Zoning Bulletin <br />from the zoning reclassification. The court found that Willow Springs <br />failed to meet its burden. Willow Springs had alleged harm from the <br />zoning reclassification that involved "decreased tax revenue due to <br />lower property values, increased municipal expenditures for road <br />repairs, and lower air quality." The court found such "conclusory al- <br />legation[s]" were insufficient, and that Willow Springs had failed to <br />submit specific evidence demonstrating that "it would suffer the <br />substantial adverse effects necessary for it to have standing to chal- <br />lenge Lemont's ordinance." Willow Springs' alleged possibility of <br />future haini that was dependent on specific ways in which the Property <br />may be used, was not sufficient for standing, concluded the court. <br />See also: Village of Barrington Hills v. Village of Hoffman Estates, <br />81 Ill. 2d 392, 43 Ill. Dec. 37, 410 N.E.2d 37 (1980). <br />See also: Village of Northbrook v. Cook County, 126 Ill. App. 3d 145, <br />81 Ill. Dec. 413, 466 N.E.2d 1215 (1st Dist. 1984). <br />Case Note: <br />Willow Springs had also sought an injunction against the proposed develop- <br />ment on the Property, alleging that the proposed development on the Property <br />would be a "public nuisance." The court rejected that, finding the complaint <br />lacked sufficient facts to state a claim. The court found it could not reasonably <br />be inferred, from the mere filing of the development application or from other <br />allegations in Willow Springs' complaint, that an injunction was appropriate. <br />Due Process —At one of a series of <br />public hearings on her property, <br />landowner is prohibited from cross- <br />examining witnesses <br />Landowner contends this denied her due <br />process, along with the bias of decisionmakers <br />Citation: Beal v. Town of Stockton Springs, 2017 ME 6, 2017 WL <br />117293 (Me. 2017) <br />MAINE (01/12/17)—This case addressed the issue of whether a <br />landowner was denied due process in relation to a determination on the <br />safety of a building on her property. More specifically, the case ad- <br />dressed whether a landowner was denied due process when she was <br />8 © 2017 Thomson Reuters <br />