Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/06/2003

Home

120 Page 6 -- January 10, 2003 inspector before the action deadline. Thus, the building inspector was required to deny the building permit application for noncompliance with zoning requirements. Although the building inspector did. not act formally on the building permit application, the zoning board undertook a review of the planning board's site plan disapproval. Though there was some difficulty in characterizing the deci- sion of the planning board on the site plan as a decision of the. zoning board, the decision of the planning board on site plan review occupied a posture in relation to the building inspector's action on the building permit application substantially similar to an adverse recommendation by the board of health in relation to a planning board action on a subdivision plan. Consequently, it held the same weight and was. subject to similar review. Citation: Cumberland Farms [nc. v. Planning Board of Bourne, Appeals Court of Massach,~setzs, No. 00-P-1802 (2002). Restrictive Covenants -- Owner wants to build home for the elderly IDAHO (11/25/02) ~ Romriell bought property in the D&M Subdivision. The property was subject to restrictive covenants, enforceable by D&M Estates Home Owners' Association Board. The covenants restricted construct/on on each lot to only one dwelling, which.could be used by no more than two families. At the time of purchase, a sing/e-family residence was located on the property. Romriell planned to use the property as a group home for the elderly. To accommodate the proposed use, RomrieLl planned to remodel the single-fam- ily home and convert it from a three-bedroom, two-bath residence to an eight- bedroom, eight-bath residence for use by a max/mum of eight, unrelated adults. Romriell sought approval for the proposed group home from the board. The board rejected the approval. Nevertheless, Rorer/ell began remodeling the residence. Romriell believed the board had unlawfully rejected Ms: request. Idaho law declared that elderly persons were entitled to live in normal resi- dential surroundings and could not be excluded because of their advanced age. It also stated homes for the care of eight or fewer elderly .persons were defined as residential uses for. the purposes of local, zoning. The board sued to enforce the covenants. The court ruled in favor, of the board, finding the covenants were valid, enforceable, and prohibited the pro- posed group home. Ronmell appealed, arguing the board's decision was discriminatory and violated' Idaho law. DECISION: Affirmed, The board's decision did not discriminate against the elderly. By the law's clear terms, it only applied to zoning regulations. The reference