Laserfiche WebLink
76 <br /> <br />_ - -- Oc~uo~.._,, 2004 <br /> <br />Z.B, <br /> <br /> Development Bylaw-- Bylaw stretches out development over a per/od of years <br /> Town intention is to slow growth <br /> Citation: Z-~c,qerman v. ~,)¥vn q~ ~diev,. Supreme J~dicial Court o~' <br /> Masxachu,?erz~-, Y/b. S./c-ogJ d9 f 2004, <br /> <br /> ND{b5,' ,C~u S~ ~T$ (08/2&'04') ~ The [own of ~adlev enacted a ra[e-of-deve~- <br /> ' '~ , ~ ' [he ~o,,vn by .... 4-~4 a [he numoe~ of <br /> opment hvinw that in, tea =.o ,v~h m <br /> C~mu oe ~ssued in any ~ven year ro a developer. Gener- <br /> ail,:, deveiopmenr was spread out over a ?hod of up ~o l0 years. <br /> Zacke~an owned a ]~ge p~cet - "'~ <br /> o~ ~an~ she wanted ro de~zelop toro a 40-~ome <br /> subdivision. Nowever. &e ra~e-ot:deveiopment bylaw l~2ted development of che <br /> prope~/ro o~y Sour units '_x ye~ for 10 Z,/e~s. Zucke~an cl~ed it was not econo~- <br />c~y feasible to sequence deveiopmen[ of tile property over a 10-year period. <br /> Zuckem~an sued, and the court ruled in her favor. <br /> The town ao¢ealed, ar,,uin,, lhr~tin~ zrowth was a valid aublic pu~ose. <br />DEC,ION: <br />~qe rare-o6deveiopmen~ bylaw was unconsrimdonai. <br />Rate-of-deveioomenr bviaws were restrictions not on how !and ultimately <br />couid be cised, but on ,,vnen ~ra.n classes of property owners could use their <br />land. In tl~eir intent and effecL these bylaws real!ocated population growth <br />tgom one town [o another, and imposed on o~her communities ~he increased <br />burdens one cold, unity sought to xvoid. <br /> Despite the perceived benefiis of ea]orced isolation, it did nor serve the <br />general welfare of a stare to perns~ one particular town to de~Eect the wave of <br />pe~anenr home seekers onto its neighbors. <br /> There was ~m~e doubt the initial adoption of the bylaw appropriately sought <br />to enable the cown ~o plan for ~owth and adopt programs and orher zoning <br />measures to preserve its agricukura[ resources and character. But 1.5 years had <br />passed, ~d the town had more than ample time to t~lfill that legitimate pu¢ose. <br /> Ultimately, preventing the entrance of newcomers for the indefinite rVture <br />was nor a ,/alid public pa~ose and was thus unconstitutional. <br />zee c~ixo: ~'ome B~tilderx AxaocMrior~ of Cape Cod 7nc, v. Cape Cod <br />Commission, ,~Or'~ f = ~" <br />see cTiso: Prime v. Zonin.~ Boord qt'Appeals of 3tbm, ve~I, 680 ~V. A'. 2d JJ 8 (1997). <br /> <br />Appeal -- Coun[y comn~ssh)ner seems ro have prejudged application <br />S,:ares he ~,,~ts ~tbao{ureiv required by/aw ao approve <br /> <br />........... -- ~,~ ,.nc. obtained ~ special <br />permJ~ for ~ ~am~arv landfill. <br /> <br /> <br />