Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/05/2006

Home

r- ", \. t' \, Z.B. September 25, 2006 - Page 7 2002, over the objections of the planning board and the board of selectmen, the amendnientto the zoning ordinance was approved by the citizens at the annual town meeting. In June 2003, Aspen sued the town, alleging that the amended ordinance was unconstitutional and seeking damages for inverse condemnation. . In response to the lawsuit, the planning board and the board of selectmen sent a letter to residents stating that they disagreed fundamentally with the zoning amendment and would not commit the town funds necessary to defend the action in court. The letter further stated that interested residents. had the right to intervene at their own expense. In October 2003, a group of residents filed a motion to intervene, which was approved with limited standing. Subsequently, Aspen and tpe town asked the court to approve a settlement in the lawsuit. In the settlement, both parties agreed that the amendment was unconstitutional because it restricted the reasonable use of the land. The settle- ment ultimately permitted Aspen to develop the land. TlIecourtheld a hearing to address the settlement and the objections of the residents, and. the settlement was approved. The residents appealed. DECISION :Aflirmed. The sole issue on appeal was whether the lower court erred in approving the settlement, which the resi4ents claimed was based on erroneous facts and conc1usionsof law and was approved without an adequate hearing. However, the court found that the residents had ample notice and opportunity to rebut the facts and contentions at the hearing, yet they failed to do so. The court also concluded that the residents' claim that the ruling was based on erroneous facts was merely an allegation. The residents did not present, or attempt to present, any evidence to the contrary. The residents had adequate procedural rights of which they did not avail themselves. Settlements were encouraged by the New Hampshire courts. In reYiew~g the appropriateness of a settlement, appeals courts had to consider whether the trial court abused its discretion. To prove that there was an abuse of discretion, the trial court ruling had to be untenable and unreasonable. In this case, there was no such showing by the residents. As such, the decision of the trial court was affmned. Equal Protection - Kennel owner claims land use regulations caused business to fail Says state conspired against her based on race Citation: Johnson v. Boulder County, U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, No. 04-cv-00245-RPM (2006) COLORADO (08/04/06) - Johnson, a black woman, operated a dog grooming business in Boulder. After neighbors complained about excessive barking, an investigating sheriff found that the business was actually a kennel. Kennels were allowed only in agricultural zones; Johnson purchased a building in an @ 2006 Quinlan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibiled~ For more information please call (617) 542-0048. 91