Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/01/1997

Home

,. Z.B. June 10, 1997 - Page 7 DECISION: Reversed and returned to the board. Planning boards did have the right to consider traffic patterns and deny subdivision applications accordingly, but only if they provided clear reasons for doing so. The planning board didn't explain why the first 10 lots were acceptable, while the other IS needed a second access road. As a result, the board's decision had to be disregarded, and the matter had to be returned to the board so it could make findings and arrive at a new decision based on those findings. see also: Matter of M & M Partnership v. Sween or, 619 N.Y.S.2d 802. see also: Matter of Genesee Farms v. Scopano, 431 N.Y.S.2d 219. Mobile Home Park - Park owner wants to add eight new homes to 60- unit park Cox v. Board of Appeals of Carver, 677 N.E.2d 699 (Massachusetts) 1997 Commercial Design Associates Inc. owned a 60-unit mobile home park in the town of Carver, Mass., that existed as a nonconforming use. It wanted to buy a 2.S-acre tract of land across from the existing park and add eight new mobile homes. The new land, which bordered a pond, would give residents in both the original and new parks access to a beach. The purchase-and-sale agreement was conditioned on Commercial's getting all the necessary permits. The town's zoning bylaw required that mobile home parks occupy at least 100 acres and that their owners get a special permit from the town board of appeals. The board granted Commercial the special permit, and neighbors of the 2.S-acre tract appealed to court. Because they at first filed incorrectly, their complaint was delayed. Before they could file correctly, Commercial had bought the property. Commercial tried to claim the neighbors filed their complaint too late to bring it to trial. It said it had proceeded with the purchase because it knew the neighbors' complaint was flawed. The court allowed the complaint, saying Commercial should have put off buying the property, knowing the neighbors could simply fix their complaint. It also found the board abused its discretion in granting Commercial the permit because the park extension would violate the 100-acre area requirement. Commercial appealed. It argued the neighbors lacked standing to appeal the permit because the proposed extension wouldn't decrease their property values. It also claimed it didn't have to meet the bylaw's area requirement - it had to show only that the extension wouldn't be more detrimental to the neighborhood than was the existing park. DECISION: Affirmed. The board abused its discretion when it granted Commercial the special permit. The bylaw's ambiguous language had been clarified by the state Supreme Court in a past case. The court said the town's bylaw should be interpreted to mean nonconforming uses could be extended if 1) the extension complied with ) 01