01/06/05 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

96 Page 4 -- December 10, 2004 Z.B. changes. During that time, several pians fell through, and another developer, R.J. Waters & Associates, applied for and received the zoning changes neces- sary to' build a shopping center at another township isite. Thornbury sued, arguing the township violated its due process fights by intentionally approving the zoning for the Waters' development more quickly than it approved its plan because Waters agreed to make a $600,000 contribu- tion to the township for the purchase of open space. Thornbury alleged' the township knew only one shepping center would be built in the township, and that it would go to the first developer to get zoning approval. DECISION: judgment in favor of township. The township did not vioiate Thornbury's due process rights. A reasonable juq/could conciude from the evidence that the township inten- tionally hastened approval of the Waters' project and/or intentionally slowed down approval of Thornbury's plan. However, the b0~d was not motivated by person',:d gain, but rather by a concern for the amount of open space in the township. Conse- quently, the question became whether the board's actions shocked the conscience. A decision shocked the conscience if it was "so brutal and offensive that it [did] not compo~ with traditional ideas of fair play and decency." The actions taken by the board involved many competing concerns and a good deal of politics. Thombury sought a zoning change for business, rather than personal purposes. Even without. the zoning changes, Tnombu~ could, and, in fact, did, build a shopping center. Based on the 'evidence, the court found that favoring one development over another for the purpose of preserving open space did not shock the conscience. The township's actions did not violate the decencies of civilized conduct; they were not so brutal and offensive that they did not comport with tradidomtl ideas of fair play and decency, nor did they interfere with rights implicit in the concept of ordered liberty. Ultimately, the court determined the township's actions were perfectly legal. see al~o: Co,tory of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, ]18 S. Ct. ]708, ]40 L. Ed. 2d ]043 see cilxo: ~iJae~ynon ,~. Butch, 494 U.S. 113, 110 &Ct. 975, ]08 L. Ed. 2d ]00 (1990). Zoning Bylaw ~ Educational service claims zoning violates its constitutional rights Unable to ex]]and and change its current land use Cirario~: Re/~obiiirative Reso,trces [~c. v. Peobody, Superior Court of Mc~ssachuserrs, ar Worcester, No. 03-i474 (2004) MASSACHUSETTS i 10/07/04) -- Rehabilitative Resources Inc. was a non- profit corporation serving the developmentally disabled. Rehabilitative ,,,,,anted to outed a new two-story office building on a site it used for ,'rainu'm 5ts clients. As planned, the new construction would not con- form wid~ current zorung re?firements. 2004 .Sumla~ ,:uot~snmq 3~oup. Any :eproouc~on ;s oromb~iea. For more .niorrnaticn ;:lease ,.:'ail ~617) 542-0048.