My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/01/2007
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
2007
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/01/2007
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 9:42:22 AM
Creation date
10/26/2007 3:05:29 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
11/01/2007
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
167
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />Zoning Bulletin <br /> <br />not beYOJld the scope of authority of the ... Board; [were] not arbitrary, (~ <br />capricious, unreasonable or contrary to law; and [were] not legally en- <br />titled to be annulled." <br />The neighbors appealed. <br /> <br />DECISION: Affirmed. <br /> <br />Generally, an administrative decision by a zoning board could not be <br />overturned by a court unless it was "based on a legally untenable ground, <br />or [was] unreasonable, whimsical, capricious or arbitrary." In this case, <br />the appeals court reviewed the evidence de novo, or as if it was being pre- <br />sented for the first time, to determine if the board had acted improperly. <br />The burden of proving that, however, laid with the neighbors; deference <br />was given to the board's presumed expertise on zoning matters. <br />The plaintiffs argued that the decision of the board allowing the spe- <br />cial permits had to be reversed because the board did not interpret the <br />by-law to require consideration of the effect of the construction on en- <br />dangered or protected species or their habitats. However, the appeals <br />court noted that the D~ a state agency with the necessary expertise to <br />undertake that technical inquiry, was expressly tasked with this respon- <br />sibility by a general law, and that agency concluded that the allowance <br />of the special permits in this case would not have a negative impact on .-.'") <br />any protected species under the Endangered Species Act. <br />Importantly, though, nothing in the relevant by-law provisions even <br />required such consideration. In fact, the provisions did not even men- <br />tion "protected species" or "priority habitats." The absence of such <br />specific language was made more significant by the fact that this kind of <br />consideration was required elsewhere in the zoning by-law-in sections <br />addressing specific areas that were of particular environmental concern <br />to the town. The court noted that~ if the by-law had intended for such a <br />review, it would have been listed among the requirements for granting a <br />special permit. " <br />The decision of the land court was affirmed. <br /> <br /> <br />12 <br /> <br />86 <br /> <br />) <br /> <br />, <br />i <br />; <br />i <br />i <br />I <br />IiI <br />! <br />I <br />1 <br />1 <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />i <br />i <br />I <br />I <br />! <br />1 <br />I <br />i <br />I <br />I <br />\ <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />i <br />i <br />i <br />i <br />I <br />I <br />; <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.