Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/06/2003

Home

Z.B. January 10, 2003 Page 7 to "zoning" specifically excluded the law's application to. private restrictive covenants, which were not mentioned. Because the validity and enforceability of restrictive covenants had' Iong been upheld, the legislature had to clearly state if it wished a law to void them. Because the plain meamng of the statute was clear, the court did not have to.rule on whether the need for elderly housing was be/ag met, whether other efforts had been undertaken to meet this need, or whether such a policy would effect existing contractual fights or create a governmental, taking. Citation: D&M Country Estates Homeowners Association v. Romriell, Supreme Court of Idaho, No. 27429 (2002). Spot Zoning -- Development delayed for almost two years MASSACHUSETTS (11/25/02) ~ W.R. Grace & Co. owned approximately 29 acres.in North Cambridge. Grace acquired the property in 1954. Chemical products were manufactured on the property until 1974. Prior to 1977, the property was in an "Industry B" zoning district, where industrial uses were permitted as of right. In 1977, Cambridge redesignated the district an "Industry C" district, which restricted building height to 45 feet and allowed a maximum floor area ratio of 1.0. The district was the only Industry C zoning district in the city. Most of the property within the district was owned by Grace, the remainder consisting of a two-family house and a small parcel owned by. the Metropolitan District Commission. . Grace applied for a special permit to develop a hotel and six office build- ings with associated retail uses. In 1996, a petition by certain Cambridge residents Ied to adoption by the city council of a zoning amendment that rezoned-as open space a 400zfoot buffer area consisting of approximately 13 acres bordering on the adjacent residential districts. The version of the petition ultimately adopted by the city council provided for expiration of the buffer six months after the date of enactment.' Grace sued, arguing the' temporary buffer constituted illegal spot zoning. The city council then adopted anott~er amendment to the'zoning ordinance, creating a temporary building moratorium.. Grace amended.its complaint to include this moratorium in its lawsuit. Through-further extensions, Grace's plans for develoRment were held.up-for approximately 23 months. The court ultimately ruled in favor of the city council. Grace appealed, arguing, the city acted improperly. DECISION: Affirmed. The city council, action was proper. . Cities were generally permitted to adopt any zoning provisions that were constitutionally permissible. The constitutional test was whether the provision was clearly arbitrary and unreasonable and had no substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals, or general Welfare. 121