Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/05/2007

Home

Zoning Bulletin ticulated clearly the legislature's intent for zoning disputes to be limited to a "well-de- fined procedure ... [that] provide[d] finality at the end of the proceedings." The lower court had noted that - while nothing expressly prohibited the intro- duction of an application to amend final subdivision permits. - an enacted, unap. pealed subdivision permit was considered final and could Dot be challenged. The com. mission could amend the permit in "appropriate circumstances," but those conditions were left to its discretion. It was not required to amend a permit simply because there was no objection to the changes. Importantly, the record showed that there had been no change in critical envi- ronmental regulatory and factual circumstances related to the land in question since the original permit was enacted. There were also no other changes that would justify amending the permit. Ultimately, the court concluded that: "[s]ubdivision permits and amendments [were] the Town's primary toor for effectuating the town plan," and, given that, the town had the authority to protect covenants attached to permits that promoted its plan. The commission was not obligated to amend the permit, the court had not erred in affirming the commission's decision, and the case was dismissed. See also: In re Stowe Club Highlands~ 166 Vt. 33, 687 A.2d 102 (1996). See also: In re Nehemiah Associates, Inc., 166 Vt. 593, 689 A.2d 424 (1996). Eminent Domain - Developer argues payment for annexed land not just compensation City counters part of land not suitable for development should not be considered in offer, Citario~: Clark v. City of West{ield~ 68 Mass. App. Ct. 1104~ 860 N.E.2d 703 (2007) MASSACHUSEITS (01/24/07) -Clark Sons Realty owned land in the city of West- field. In December 1996, Clark began the process of applying for subdivision with the intention of selling andlor developing the land. The subdivision plan received preliminary approval for the creation of 17 lots. In January 1997, however, the city council ordered the taking of the land for the construction of a school. ,The city determined that the fair market value for the land was $450,000, and it paid Clark that amount in March. Clark was dissatisfied with the city's valuation, and it filed a petition in court seek~ ing review of the "grossly inadequate" compensation. Clark argued that the city had not included the value of two lots of land due to the city's erroneous application of an environmental act. According to the city, the act, called the Rivers Protection Act, prevented any development on the lots because of their proximity to a river. Clark claimed that the act was not applicable and the value of the two lots should have been included in the total offer made for the taking of its land. The court, how- ever, fOlUld that Clark did Dot show that development would be possible on the lots in question given the terms of the act. The court, therefore, fOlUld in the city's favor and approved the city's valuation. Clark appealed, arguing that the court had erred in affirming the city's appraisal on two COlUlts. First, Clark claimed that the preliminary approval of its subdivision plan proved that the city believed the lots to be buildable in December 1996; second, it ar- gued that the act was not enforceable at the date of the taking of its land by the city. Decision: Affirmed. 6 112