Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/07/2017

Home

Zoning Bulletin August 10, 2017 I Volume 11 I Issue 15 As to Wolfram's argument that the annex violated a 20% lot coverage re- striction applicable to guest houses, the court concluded that the annex was not a "guest house" since the bedrooms in the annex would be used by staff and not paying guests. Accordingly, the court concluded that the 20% lot coverage restriction was inapplicable here. Finally, the court also rejected Wolfram's contentions that his due process rights were violated by bias and ex parte emails between Nebo and the Plan- ning Board. The court found that one of the communications identified by Wolfram "implicate[d] the BOA's impartiality," and that many of the emails were directed at "complying with the permit process, the Ordinance, and other applicable standards prior to the Planning Board bearing." The court concluded: "Assuming the emails were improper ex parte communications, this would not be a basis to vacate the BOA's decision . . . because Wolfram . . . failed to point to any evidence that the communications in fact affected that decision." Finding a "dearth of evidence in the record that the BOA deci- sion was the product of bias or procedural unfairness," the court concluded that the decision did not violate Wolfram's due process rights. See also: Zegel v. Board of Social Worker Licensure, 2004 ME 31, 843 A.2d 18, 21 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 31 (Me. 2004). Case Note: Nebo had applied for a conditional use permitfor the annex use. In his appeal, Wolfram had also argued that the BOA improperly failed to consider the Nebo property as a whole when assessing, as required by the Ordinance for conditional use permit ap- plications, whether the use would have an adverse impact on the "quiet possession of surrounding properties." The court found that since "the evidence did not compel a finding that there was a `substantial increase or expansion in the volume or intensity of' the inn and restaurant use," the BOA was not required to consider the Nebo prop- erty as a whole. Rather; the court found that the BOA properly applied the Ordinance when finding that the annex use, alone, would not have such an adverse impact. Zoning News from Around the Nation FLORIDA A new state law, effective July 1, preempts "local governments from regulating medical cannabis dispensaries any more than they regulate pharmacies." Reportedly, municipalities are considering options of: changing zoning laws for pharmacies, and applying already proposed medical marijuana rules to both dispensaries and pharmacies; or completely banning medical marijuana dispensaries. S ource: Miami Herald; www.inianiiherald.coin © 2017 Thomson Reuters 11