Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/03/2006

Home

Page 4 - July 25,2006 LB. (. and 3) t~e nature of the government action. The court concluded that Wensmann did not prove that the city council had any negative impact on the value of the property by not approving its request. In addition, Wensmann knew atthe time that it enteredinto the agree- ment with Rahn that the property was subject to a zoning restriction that would prevent its residential development. The court concluded that Wensmann failed to articulate any of the three inverse-condemnation considerations and found in favor of the city. see also: Mendota Golfv. City of Mendota Heights, 708 N. 'W:2d 62 (2006). . .Land Use - Town enacts interim growth management ordinance Association claims ordinance unconstitutional Citation: Weare Land Use Association v. Town of Weare, Supreme Court-of New Hampshire, No. 2004-849 (2006) NEW HAMPSHIRE (05/18/06) - On March 9, 2004, the town of Weare adopted an interim growth management ordinance that: I) prohibited the town plan- ning board and the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) from formally accept- ing or acting upon any application of a residential use; 2) prohibited the planning board and the ZBA from formally accepting or acting upon any I subdivision application creatirig more than three lots; and 3) allowed for the...~. issuance of only 60 permits for the construction of new dwelling units. All of these restrictions were to be in force for a period of one year from the date of the ordinance. The Weare Land Use Association (association) filed suit, claiming that the ordinance was "illegal, unconstitutional and void both on its face and as applied." After a hearing, the court found in favor of the town. The association appealed. DECISION: Affinned. The court ruled that the town had the right to adopt an interim growth man- agement ordinance where unusual circumstances warranted its enactment. The legislature granted the authority to cities and towns to give them a reasonable amount of time to develop or amend a master plan to manage growth. The association contended that the trial c.ourt erred by failing to conclude that the town had exceeded its authority by enacting the statute. The associa- tion based its argument on the existence of a state law giving landowners the right to have an application accepted and acted upon by a local board. In addition, the association challenged the statute on constitutional grounds by asserting that it failed the rational-basis test for substantive due process. Under this principle, the association claimed that the statute was undulY, re- strictive in that there was no reasonable relationship to the objective of the ordinance and the restriction of the fundamental rights of the landowner. The court ruled -that the association was incorrect in its contention that the statute that gave the landowner the right to have an application accepted and 96 @ 2006 Quinlan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048.