Laserfiche WebLink
November 10. '2004 -- Page 5 <br /> <br />TakSng -- Bylaw disallows houses in. 100-year flood plain <br />Landowner claims unconstitutional limitation on the best use of her land <br />Ci~t~ion.' Grenier v. Zoning Board of Appealx ~F Chatham, Appeals Court <br />Mc~s,~'cu:h use~rx. ~Vo. 02-P-3 ] 9 '(2004) <br /> <br />MASSACHUSETTS (09/!7/04) ~ Gore owned lot 93 in Chatham. w~ch was <br />situated m an area designated as being within ~he 100-year flood plain. <br /> !n 1935. the zoning by[aw was amended to establish areas within the <br />i. 00-vear t]ood plain as an overlay conservancy district. The zoning by~aw <br />expres:s~y prohibited the construction of residential dwelling units and <br />did not provide for use variances. Uses allowed in the d~stfict included <br />cultivatmn and harvesting of shellfish and other marine foods, the manual <br />harvesting of flora, outdoor recreati0naI activities, and the use and <br />p'rovement of the land for agriculture. Special pe~Ats could be g~anted for <br />boathouses, ramps, struts, and structures used in conjunction with <br /> <br />or a marina. <br /> <br /> [n 1998, Gore entered into a sales contract with Grenier. The contract was <br />cunfingent upon Grenier's abit~ty to build a sinale-fa~lv residence. <br /> Gore sued. clai~ng the bylaw caused an unconstitutional tarnS. ~e cou~ <br />ruled m faw)r of the town. <br /> Gove appealed, arguing the by[aw unconstitutionally limited the best use <br />and enjoyment of her land. <br /> <br /> The zoning b,daw was constitutional as appt~ed to Gore's property. <br /> A land-use regulation could deprive an owner of a beneficial property use, <br />even the most beneficml use, w~thout rendering a regulation an unconstitu- <br />tional tarns. <br /> Although Chatham's bylaws rest~cted the manner [n w~ch Gore could Use <br />her property, they d~d not deprive her of all econo~cally beneficial uses of <br />93. Lot 93 cou{d be devoted ~o recreational pursuits or s°ld to conservationists <br />or abutters. In facL Gore's expe~ witness testified lot 93 had a residual value of <br /> <br /> The zoning bylaw did not interfere w/th any reasonable investment-backed <br />e.'~pecrarions hartmred by Gore. When Gove acquired lot 93, residential devel- <br /> A~out [0 ,/ears rorer, Chatham amended irs <br />opmenc was a permissible use. ~ " <br />.aminz 2?'k~w m tach_tale the lO0-vear flood plain within its conservancy district. <br />Yhu:~. rno,,'e nero [o~ ,_ for about a decade during which the property could <br />have b~zen deveh0c, ed or sold for residential use. Conseqnendy, the bylaw did <br />n,)r msuit m an unconstitutional <br /> <br />'}: -{~(,-~ ',iJiIW',fl ,z".iCliSRIrl~ }fOliO. 4fi,[ .'eorocuc:lon s 9rofilE:lied. ,:of more nfor.m, aiton :21e3se. 22J[ i~17" 5a2-.';0~:3. <br /> <br />87 <br /> <br /> <br />