01/06/05 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Z.B. December 10, 2004--Page 5 Because of the nonconformities, the Zoning Board o'f Appeals of Sturbridge denied Rehabilitative the necessary permits. Rehabilitative sued, arguing its constitutional ~ghts were violated by the zoning bylaw on which the board based its decision. D E CI$ION: Judgment in favor of the board. The undisputed facts established the zoning bylaw was facially use-neutral in that it imposed no greater or different requirements on religious and educa- tional institutions than on other landowners. The bylaw served legitimate and important objectives of local land use regulation: density control, provision of light and air.. traffic safety and decon- gestion, and control of runoff. The bylaw ,;vas not unreasonable as applied to Rehabilitative's project. The site was already nonconforming as to the setback and lot width requirements. Although the proposed construction woul'd not lessen the frontage or ~make the lot narrower, it would substantially intensify the use, and therefore affect the issues of access, density, light, and air it was intended to address. Setbacks would be virtually nonexistent over much of the site's perimeter, and lot cover- age by impervious surface Would, on the commercial portion of the site, sub- stantially exceed the permitted 70 percent. Rehabilitative did not show it would be excessively burdened by dompli- ance with the bylaw. The .facility was a relatively fungible commercial office building. It was neither a campus, nor a singleipurpose structure, nor the last developable site in town. Rehabilitative might have outgrown the allotted spade and might wish to cons~)lidate its operations, but this was not enough to show an otherwise legitimate land use regulation would Unreasonably interfere with its educational mission. see also: Hobbs Brook Farm Property, Co. v. Planning Board of Lincoln, 721 N.E. 2d 398 (2000). see also: Tr[tstees of Boston College v. Alderman of Newton, 793 N.E. 2d 387 (2003). Vested Right -- Zoning changes, but not before developer spends almost $1 million Developer argues vested right for prior" ' ,, ,,onzn~ and building permit Citation: Ft.trnirure LLC v. The Ci~ of Chica~o. Appellate Co~trt of illinois, /st District, 4th Div., No. 1-02-3874 (2004) ILLINOIS ~ 10/21/04) -- Fm'niture LLC acquired a parcel of property w~thin the City ,)f Chicago for the purpose of building an apartment building. Under [he zoning regulations then in place, a residential structure wi~s a pern]irted '._tse. ~-Iowever, two years after Furniture purchased the property, ~'he z~)ning zla,ssification of the property was changed from residential to a 2tanned rn~nufacturhag di:.'.trict. Such districts were created to protect exist- 2004 ,'~mnlan .~upiisning Group. 3.nv ,eproauc!ion is :~rohibitea. For more reformation piesse call (617~ 542-0048. 97