Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/06/2003

Home

!32 Page 6 -- February 10, 2003 neither the planning board nor its. members were "perSons'' entitled to sue. Similarly, the planning board Was not "aggrieved." A Person was "ag- grieved" if he or She suffered some injurY or infringement of his Or her legal rights. The injury had to be a violation of a private right, private property inter- est, or a private legal interest. An aggrieved person had t° show he or she had. an injury that was special and different from the concerns of the rest of the community. The planning board's alleged injUry was that the proposed development would not create affordable housing. Such .an injury was not special' and differ-. ent from the rest of the community. Citation: planning Board of Hingham v. Hingham Campus LLC, Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, No. SJC-08777 (2003). see also: Commonwealth v. Dowd, 638 N.£.2d 923(1994). see also: Marashlian v. Zoning Board of Appeals Of Newburyport, 660 N.E. 2d 369~(1996). Zoning Classification -- Developer claims property no!°nger suitable for residences Alleges noise and traffic had increased and parcet was near flight path OHIO (12/27/02) w Heritage DevelOpment. Company LL C wanted to develop property within a residential district. The parcel was boundedby both afire- lane state highway and a 10-1ane interstate. It also bordered three residential developments and a golf course. Along the western edge was a 25-year,old easement for high-tension power lines. Finally, the parcel was near the flight pattern of the Cuyahoga County Regional Airport. " Heritage sued the city, cia/ming the residential zoning classifiCation ap- plied to the property was unconstitutional. . At trial, several property owners within the parcel testified the residential nature of the property had decreased, the noise, and traffic on the highways had increased, and the lights from the interstate and the' noise from planes flying overhead were bothersome. They expressed their belief the area was no longer suitable residential property. -' ' -Experts testified the. area lost its residential character because of the traffic and high-tension power lines. One of the experts said there:was no reasonable relationship between the zoning classification and protection.of the health~ safety, and welfare of the city. The city offered the testimony of Father Smiga. Smiga saidhe experienced none of the difficulties with lights or noise. He was unaware of the high-ten- sion lines and appreciated the residential character of the neighborhood. Fi- nally, he said changing 'the zoning of the area would significantly after the surroundings. "1 I I I I I i I i I i i I I I i I I