Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/03/2007

Home

February 15, 2007\ Volume 1 I No.4 acted, lli"lappealed subdivision permit was considered final and could not be challenged. The commission could amend the permit in "appropriate circum- stances," 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 criti- cal environmental 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. illtimately, the court con- cluded that: "[s]ubdivision permits and amendments [were] the Town's pri- mary tool 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.ld 424 (1996). Eminent Domain - Developer argues payment for annexed land not just compensation City counters part of land not suitablefof development should not be considered in offer Citation: Clark v. City of Westfield; 68 Mass. App. Ct. 1104,2007 WL 174419 (2007) MASSACHUSETIS (01/24/07) - Clark Sons Realty owned land in the city of Westfield. In December 1996, Clark began the process of applying for subdivision with the intention of selling and/or developing the land. The subdivision plan received preliminary approval for the creation of 17 lots. In January 1997, however, the ciry 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 seeking review of the "grossly inadequate" compensation. Clark ar- gued 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 fot the taking of its land. The court, however, found that Clark did not show that development would be possible on the lots in question given the terms of the act. The court, therefore, found 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 counts. 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 argued that the act was not enforceable .at the date of the taking of its land by the city. Decision: A:ffumed. A municipality could take land of a private owner for a public use if it offered the owner just compensation for the land; this right is called eminent domain. Generally, the rule for determining damages in eminent domain cas- es relied on determining the fair market value at the time of the taking. Fair 6 36