Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/01/2007

Home

1 i ,I i j 1 J I I I j I J I I ! i'~ October 1, 20071 Volume 11 No. 19 \ 1 ./ idential zoning district with a three-acre minimum lot size requirement. . The lots were not in any of the special overlay districts or districts of. critical planning concern within the town. Under the town's code, the zoning board of appeals could approve a special permit for a substandard lot to be buildable in any zoning dis- trict provided certain conditions were considered and met. There was a mini~um lot sIze requirement, and the minimum requirements of the town board of health for water and septage had to be satisfied. In addition, a by-law stated that: "[t]he Board shall grant such a Spe- cial Permit only if ... the Board finds that the specific site is an appro- priate location for such uses, that such uses will not adversely affect the neighborhood'arid that adequate and appropriate facilities and protection will be provided such as, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, parking facilities and screening of unsightly uses from public view." The board held public hearings, and some neighboring property own- ers spoke oui: against the plan to build the homes. Specifically, the objec- tors argued that construction of three single-family residences on three one-acre lots would change the character of the neighborhood and that the 20-foot way serving the properties was inadequate. In addition, the neighbors raised various environmental concerns. A lawyer that represented the abutting landowners said that any applica- tion in a "priority habitat" had to consult the Division of Fisheries and Wildlife's (DFW) Natural Heritage for Endangered. Species Program regarding endangered species that lived in the area. The board did not specifically hear testimony from agency at the hearings, but the property owners submitted letters that they had submitted to the DFW related to the impact ofthe proposed construction. . After considering the evidence, the board voted to approve the per- mits. After the permits were issued, the DFW sent a letter to the board that stated that "[b]ased on a review of the information tnat was pro- vided and the information that is currently contained in our database, the [Natural Heritage for Endangered Species Program] has determined that this project, as currently proposed, will not result in a prohibited 'take' of state-listed rare species." Arguing that the special permits' were improperly granted, the neigh- bors filed suit in land court. They contended that the board could not have found that the lots were appropriate locations and that the uses would not adversely affect the neighborhood without first properly con- sidering the environmental consequences. They argued that a full study of a specific breed of endangered moths known to that area should have been done before the permits were approved. The land court ~ranted judgment in favor of the three property own- ers, finding that "the decisions of the Board in these three cases [was] 11 ) i _/ 85