Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/05/2006

Home

Page 6 - September 25, 2006 Z.B. (C"" {, The county held a hearing on Bartheld's application. At that hearing, a large number of. neighbors appeared to oppose the application. After the public comments, the county voted to deny the application and to place a moratorium on all bed and breakfast lodging applications. The county stated that the primary reason for denying the application was the opposition of neighboring property owners. In addition, the county stated that it needed time to develop guidelines' to regulate the operation of bed and breakfast businesses. Bartheld appealed. DECISION: Reversed. The county could propose an interim zoning ordinance - a legislative function - which would be upheld unless the measure was unsupported by any rational basis related to the health, safety, and general welfare of the citi- zens of the county. However, to enact an interim zoning ordinance, the county had to establish that it intended to conduct a study within a reasonable period of time or to conduct hearings to consider amending its comprehensive plan. The county acknowledged that it did not adopt a written interim zoning ordinance. anel did not intend to conduct a study or hold hearings. Conse- quently, the interim zolling ordinance was invalid and was.not a sufficient basis to satisfy the denial of the application. t 'The court also found that the county zoning ordinance permitted the operation of a bed and breakfast with a conditional use permit. The commission had made a deterrnination- Which was supported by the record - that Bartheld' s application met all the requirements for a conditional use permit. There was no reason why the permit should not have been issued. Courts have ruled previously that neighbor- hood opposition alone Was not a sufficient basis for denying an application. The decision of the county was improper and without legal basis. The decision waS reversed, and the court instructed the county to issue ~~ pe~t. Settlement- Town and developer agree zoning amendment is unconstitutional Residents claim settlement should not have been approved Citation: G2003B, LLC v. Town of Weare, Supreme Counof New Hampshire, No. 2005-408 (2006) NEW HAMPSHIRE (07/20/06) - In June 200 I, AspenAcquisitions, LLC, ac- quired a 45-acre parcel of land that abutted Mt. Dearborn Road in the town of Weare. After it acquired this property, Aspen submitted an application to the town planning board for approval to subdivide it. In December 200 I, residents of the town circulated a petition to place ap article on the next town meeting agenda that would create an historic overlay district in the vicinity of Mt. Dearborn Road by amending the zoning ordinance. This amendment would restrict development of properties within the district. ( In January 2002, the board approved Aspen's subdivision application. In March 90 @ 2006 Quinlan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited.. For mare information please call (617) 542-0048.