Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/02/2006

Home

Page 4-0ctober 10,2006 Z.B. ( ". . tion of the storage facility, and he sought to stop its construction. He asked the court to enforce the expired redevelopment agreement. The trial court found that Taliaferro did not show that he had suffered an injury and did not have standing to bring his claim. The case was dismissed. Taliaferro appealed. DECISION: Affirmed in part. The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that the only claim that Taliaferro had standing to pursue, and upon which he could demonstrate injury, was his claim that his property faced being devalued. The 3rd Circuit reversed the portion of the dismissal pertaining to that claim, but affIrmed the rest of the lower court's fIndings. The court noted tha~,10 have standing, a party alleging exclusionary zon- ing practices had to show "specifIc, concrete facts demonstrating that the challenged practiced harm [ ed] him, and that he personally would benefIt in a tangible way from the court's intervention." Taliaferro had to show that: the potential development of the property would cause him injury; there was a causal connection between his injury and the township's zoning practices; and the injury would be addressed by the remedy that he sought. Here, Taliaferro could not show an injury resulting from the alleged con- spiracy to block the residential development of the property - specifIcally, pre- I" venting use by black residents. Even if he had shown an injury, the remedy he \~~..' sQught _ the enforcement of the redevelopment agreement - would not redress the injury, as the court was powerless to enforce a plan that had expired more than 25 years prior. And, even if the plan was enforced. there was no guarantee that residential development of the property would increase the number of black residents. However, the claim that his property would be devalued by the issuance of a variance was valid, and had not been given proper consideration in earlier proceedings. Because the lower court was directed to decide only whether the board had abused its discretion, it never considered whether Taliaferro's rights were violated. Lots _ Court assesses 'bog parcel' as buildable lot Bidding family member argues lots should not be valued as such Citation: Morgan v. Jozus, Appeals Court afMassachusetts, No. 05-P-734 (2006) MASSACHUSETTS (08/21/06) - Morgan and Jozus inherited three parcels of property from their mother. One was referred to as the "cottage parcel" while the other two were referred to, collectively, as the "bog parcel." Shortly after their mother's death, the executor of the estate learned that the town was planning to increase the minimum lot size and frontage requirements for buildable lots. Without notice to Morgan, the executor had a plan created di viding the cottage parcel into two lots, and had the plan endorsed by the @ 2006 Quinlan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048. 42 ! I I , ! i i i I t i , i !