Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/07/2007

Home

Zoning Bulletin or was the execution or administration of a law, ordinance, or regula- tion that existed already. Here, the legislature conferred power on mu- nicipalities to "construct and repair sidewalks, curbs, and gutters" and to assess landowners for such construction. Importantly, the village passed an emergency measure stating that the construction on Grossenbaher's property was "necessary for the imme- diate preservation of the public peace, health, safety 8....'l.d welfare of the citizens of the Village of Strasburg." Case law provided that: "If... the action of a legislative body create[d] a law, that action [was] legisla- tive." The appeals court agreed with the lower court's finding that the assessment was the result of a legislative act. Grossenbacher also argued that he was denied due process, but the court found that he was given proper notice of the action and a mean- ingful opportunity for his objections to be heard. Finding no error and no violations of Grossenbacher's rights, the ap- peals court upheld the lower COlli-r'S decision. See also: Donnelly v. City of Fairview Park, 13 Ohio St. 2d 1, 42 Ohio Op. 2d 1, 233 N.E.2d 500 (1968). Ordinance-Enforcement officer denies building permit under back lot ordinance Landowner claims provision doesn't apply to his property Citation: Merrill v. Town of DU1-ham, 2007 ME 50, 2007 WL 1053422 (Me. 2007) MAThi"E (04/10/07)-Merrill ow-ned land in the town of Durham that was identified as Lot 36B. The deed to the land stated that it was ac- cessible by two different town roads, but the lot did not actually have frontage on an existing roadway. One of the roads named iLJ. the deed had stopped being used and the other was separated from the lot by another tract of land. "When Merrill bought the land, there was a slab of concrete on the property where a house had once stood. Merrill received permission to build a new house on the existing slab in 1999, but he did not do so be- fore the permit expired. In 2003, Merrill applied for a new building permit. The code enforce- ment officer denied the permit, citing the tow-n's back lot development ordinance. Under the ordinance, a back lot-one which did not front a tow-n road on any side-was not a buildable lot. Merrill appealed to the zoning board of appeals, which, after an initial hearing, eventually denied Merrill's permit. Merrill appealed to court, and the court found in the board's favor. Merrill appealed the decision of the lower court. 8 184