Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/01/2005

Home

Page 6 -- October 25, 2005 DECISION: Reversed. Philomeno was not entitled to approval of the original subdivision plan. Specifi~ally, to obtain approval to improve its property with 17 single-family homes, Ph/lomeno rifled a subdivision plan. It then filed a conditional use appli- cation, for a cluster development overlay to build the Planned townhouses. Consequently, Philomeno filed two inconsistent applications for the same tract of land. The f'~rst application merely sought to improve the property, while the second sought to change its use. Importantly, the board, as the governing body, was required to rule on each application. The purpose of a mandatory t/me period for application approval was to protect an applicant from dilatory conduct bY the government. Therefore, to conclude the board's failure to rule on the ~ubdivision plan while a conditional use application for the same property was pending would permit Philomeno to manipulate the purpose of the mandated time period. Ultimately, the board's violation of the time period was the result of confu- sion regarding the tWo inconsistent applications, not dilatory conduct. see also: Lehigh Asphalt Paving and Construction Company v. Board of Supervisors of East Penn Township, 830 A.2d 1063 (2003). see also: Shelbourne Square Associates L,?. v. Board of Supervisors of Township of Exeter, 794 A.2d 946 (2002). Standing MAbutting property owner sues board over development Only provides opinion evidence on loss of property value Citation: Standerwick v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Andover, Appeals Court of Massachusetts, No. 04-P-i 7 (2005) MASSACHUSETTS (08/26/05) --Avalon at'St. Clare Inc. was issued a compre- hensive permit to build a multi-unit building on a site in Andover. The project was a residential housing development located in a district zoned for single-family housing. Avalon intended to raze an unused monastery on the site and build a 60~foot high, four-story apartment building containing 115 rental units, a paved parking lot, a clubhouse, and offices. Standerwick, a neighboring property owner, sued, arguing she would be impacted adversely by the new development. The court ruled in favor of ~he board. It found Standerwick did not have standing to challenge the board's decision to allow the development. Standerwick appealed. DECISION: Reversed. Standerwick had standing to sue. Standerwick identified several ways in which the board's decision could affect her, including diminution of her property value, traffic concerns, ad- verse drainage, interference with light, increased noise, and an expected © 2005 Quinlan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more intormation please calf (617) 542-0048. 56 ~