Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/06/2007

Home

Zoning Bulletin Lots that are held ill. comnlon ownership would not be given grandfa- ther status as separate lots because, usually, the lots could be merged to form a single conforming lot. The appeals court found that the cnLX for determining ovmership was whether there was legal control of a given lot. In this case, that meant whether Chiaraluce ever had the ability to merge the rwo lots legally. Because Chiaraluce owned one of the lots in tandem with his Vii-ife, neither could sell nor alter the property without the other's consent as long as they were both living. As sole trustee for the Trust that owned the lot in question, Chiaraluce did have control over that lot, but it was not within his power IO use the adjacent lot to avoid or reduce the nonconformity. However, the lot did not have the minimum frontage to qualify for grandfather status. Despite the fact that the lot had 50 feet of beach frontage, the town's zoning bylaws did not include beach frontage in its definition of "lot frontage." Lot frontage was defined as "[t]hat portion of a lot fronting upon a street or way, public or private, measured con- tinuously along the street sideline between side lot lines." The lot here had only 14 feet of frontage under that definition. Because the property failed to meet the criteria on which the board and lower court had based their findings, the decisions approving and upholding the special permit were both reversed. See also: Planning Ed. of Norwell v. Serena, 27 Mass. App. Ct. 689, 542 N.E.2d 314 (1989), a{td, 406 Mass. 1008, 550 N.E.2d 1390 (1990). Appeal-Developer claims lower court erred by barring its claims Initial suit dismissed for lack of administrative exhaustion Citation: Greengael, LC 1/. Board of Supervisors of Culpeper County, Va, 2007 WL 1597695 (W.D. Va. 2007) VIRGIN-r.i\. (06/01/07)-Greengael, a developer, purchased property in Culpepper County. At the time that the property was purchased, it was zoned multifamily residential-despite the fact that this classification was not consistent with the county's comprehensive plan. The county's plan called for the land IO be zoned light industrial. Greengael submitted a subdi",ision application for its newly acquired property. The plan included mixed-use development, including low- and moderate-income housing, retail, and single family homes. The appli- cation was denied, and, in the meantinle, the property was rezoned IO light industrial. Under the new classification, no residential development would be possible. 8 108