Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/01/2005

Home

October 25, 2005 -- Page 7 increase in crime and vandalism. As an ,abutter, Standerwick was presumed to have standing. In addition, she provided the affidavits of two witnesses who were in the real estate busi- ness to show Standerwick's property values would be diminished as a result of the construction of the development. As an abutter who claimed at least one yard basis for standing that Was not challenged with evidence from the board, it was not necessary for Standerwick to articulate other valid bases for standing. see also: Planning Board of bIingham v. Hingham Campus LLC, 438 Mass. 364 (2003). see also: Denneny v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Seekonk, 59 Mass. App. Ct. 208 (2O03). Nuisance -- Church starts to conduct services on agricultural property Claims portions of property being used for agriculture makes use legal Citation: County of Santa Clara v. Victory Outreach San Jose, Court of Appeal of California, 6th App. Dist., No. H027497 (20_05) CALIFOR~VIA (08/25/05) ~ For many years, the members of the church Victory Outreach San Jose congregated in rented hotel rooms, movie theaters, indus- trial buildings, and school auditoriums. However, each of these sites eventually proved unsatisfactory to the church members. Victory purchased land in a large-scale agzicultural zone. Under the ordi- nance, churches were not allowed on this classification of property. Although Victory was aware of the land-use designation, it still sought to develop a church on the property. Victory started to conduct services on the property. Although the county informed Victory it was violating the zoning ordinance, Victory erected a large tent, podium, parking lot, mobile structures, and portable toilets. The county sued Victory to stop its use of the property. The court ruled in the county's favor, finding Victory's use of the property a nuisance: Victory appealed, arguing its use of the property could not be considered a nuisance because two of the three parts of the property were still being used for agriculture. DECISION: A ~rmed. Victory's use of the property was a nuisance. Victory conceded that the development and use of the property without the accessory approvals and permits violated the zoning ordinance. However, it claimed there was a triable issue on the existence of a public nuisance because parcels four and six were leased for dry farming, which complied with the gen- eral plan and the zoning ordinance. However, there was no merit to Victory's argument. Victory purchased the 2005 Quinlan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (6J7) 5424048. 57