Laserfiche WebLink
<br />August 15, 2007 I Volume 1 I No. 16 <br /> <br />mmunum contiguous area for building purposes ensured that the lots <br />would: have proper areas for drainage, conform with the ordinances, <br />and have sufficient areas for sanitary facilities. Therefore, the appeals <br />court found that the minimum lot size requirement served a legitimate <br />land use purpose. <br />Finally, the trial court had found that requiring 30,000 contiguous <br />square feet of building area, when the footprint of a typical house was <br />about 2,000 square feet, was absurd. The board argued on appeal that <br />the lower court had erred in focusing upon the typical footprint of a <br />house because that ignored the purpose of the regulation to provide <br />space for the development that generally accompanies a house. <br />The appeals court agreed with the board, concluded that its interpreta- <br />tion of the regulations was correct, and found that the lower court had <br />erred in reversing its decision. The board's original decision was affirmed. <br /> <br />See also: Cohen v. Toum of Henniker, 134 N.H. 425, 593 A.2d 1145 (1991). <br /> <br />Jurisdiction-Community organization opposed to <br />development claims board had no authority to approve <br />plans on appeal <br /> <br />Claim decision from land use department could be appealed to <br />planning board only <br /> <br />Citation: Friends of Paladin v. New Castle County Bd. of Adjustment, <br />2007 WL 2085399 (Del. 2007) <br /> <br />DELAWARE (07/23/07)-Edgewood Village, LLC, owned property ad- <br />jacent to a residential condominium complex called the Paladin Club. <br />Edgewood submitted an application to develop its property and build <br />a townhouse community. <br />A group of condominium owners in the adjacent complex formed a <br />group called Friends of Paladin to contest the development. Friends of <br />Paladin objected to the development because of an old stone wall that <br />was on Edgewood's property. The group claimed that the wall had his- <br />toric significance, and it should not be altered or removed. Edgewood's <br />plans called for removal of 850 feet of the stone wall. <br />The development plans were sent to county plan.'ler and an engineer <br />for review. The county planner did not think that the wall met the cri- <br />teria for historic zoning, so the matter was forwarded to the depart- <br />ment of land use's historic preservation section. From there, the plans <br />were forwarded to the historic review board. After a hearing, the review <br />board recommended that the plans be rejected because the wall was of <br />historic significance. <br /> <br />9 <br /> <br />133 <br />