[New post] MA App. Court Upholds Amendment Creating Overlay District to facilitate University Expansion and Finds No Spot Zoning

WordPress.com
  
Thanks!
Curtis D. Harris, BS, CGREA, REB
Bachelor of Science in Real Estate, CSULA
State Certified General Appraiser
Real Estate Broker
ASTM E-2018 Commercial Real Estate Inspector
HUD 203k Consultant
HUD/FHA Real Estate Appraiser/Reviewer
FannieMae REO ConsultantCTAC LEED CertificationThe Harris Company, Forensic Appraisers and Real Estate Consultants
*PIRS/Harris Company and the Science of Real Estate-Partners*630 North Sepulveda Boulevard, Suite 9A, Number 702
El Segundo, CA. 90245
310-337-1973 Office
310-251-3959 CellWebSite: http://www.harriscompanyrec.com Resume: http://www.harriscompanyrec.com/ CURRICULUMVITAENAME2011a.pdfCommercial Appraiser Blog: http://harriscompanyrec.com/blog/ We Make a Simple Pledge to

Communicate, in a timely fashion, each appraisal, analysis, and opinion without bias or partiality

Abstain from behavior that is deleterious to our clients, the appraisal profession, and the public

Hold paramount the confidential nature of the appraiser/consultant - client relationship

and

Comply with the requirements of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice and the
Code of Professional Ethics of the National Society of Real Estate Appraisers
IT'S THE LAW- Statement 7: Prohibition Against Discrimination
State agencies should be aware that Title XI and the Agencies' regulations prohibit federally regulated financial institutions from excluding appraisers from consideration for an assignment by virtue of their membership, or lack of membership, in any appraisal organization. Federally regulated financial institutions should review the qualifications of appraisers to ensure that they are qualified for the assignment for which they are being considered. It is unacceptable to assume that an appraiser is qualified solely due to membership in, or designation from, an appraisal organization, or the lack thereof. The Agencies have determined that financial institutions' appraisal policies should not favor appraisers from one or more organizations or exclude individuals based on their lack of such membership. If a State agency learns that a certified or licensed appraiser allegedly has been a victim of such discrimination, the State agency should inform the Agency which has regulatory authority over the involved financial institution. INCLUDING THE APPRAISAL INSTITUTE-MAICONFIDENTIALITY/PRIVILEGE NOTICE: This transmission and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee. The information contained in this transmission is confidential in nature and protected from further use or disclosure under U.S. Pub. L. 106-102, 113 U.S. Stat. 1338 (1999), and may be subject to consultant/appraiser-client or other legal privilege. Your use or disclosure of this information for any purpose other than that intended by its transmittal is strictly prohibited and may subject you to fines and/or penalties under federal and state law. If you are not the intended recipient of this transmission, please destroy all copies received and confirm destruction to the sender via return transmittal
 
From: LAW OF THE LAND [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 10:01 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [New post] MA App. Court Upholds Amendment Creating Overlay District to facilitate University Expansion and Finds No Spot Zoning

 

 New post on LAW OF THE LAND MA App. Court Upholds Amendment Creating Overlay District to facilitate University Expansion and Finds No Spot Zoningby Patricia Salkin
Farrington and Lang appealed a land court decision that upheld the validity of an amendment to the zoning ordinance of the City of Cambridge. The amendment created an overlay district intended to facilitate the expansion plans of Lesley University. The amendment made two basic zoning changes. First, it amended the zoning map extending business district C 160 feet so as to include church lots. Second, it made focused adjustments to the underlying requirements by relaxing some and increasing others. Farrington and Lang own property that abuts the lots and issue and contend that the amendment: 1) constitutes “spot zoning,” 2) was adopted under unlawful procedures, 3) misuses the overlay district zoning procedures, 4) violates the city’s guidelines for development on Massachusetts Avenue, and 5) violates the regulations of two preexisting overlay districts.Illegal spot zoning is the singling out of one area of land for different treatment that accorded to similar surrounding land. The city points out that they engaged in substantial zoning analysis which resulted in findings that rezoning would confer a public benefit to the city. Further, the record indicates that the city council did not hastily adopt the amendment; various planning, meetings and negotiations were held for three years prior to approving the plans. The appeals court found no issue with the spot zoning claim, reasoning that the enactment of zoning is a legislative act that must be sustained when there is reasonable basis to support it.Challenges to zoning adoptions on the basis of illegal procedures, and specifically ones that are the product of contract zoning requires the court to consider whether the action was contrary to the best interest of the city. Despite the plaintiffs’ claims that Lesley’s commitment of $500,000 toward mitigation measures constitutes illegal contract zoning, the court held that as long as the amendment serves a public purpose, voluntary payment alone cannot invalidate the legislative act.The plaintiffs also argue that the regulations in the city’s zoning board prohibit construction of buildings for private educational use in the residence B district. The defendants contend that the lots are no longer zoned as residence B and pursuant to Home Rule Amendment the city is free to amend the zoning ordinance where doing so plausibly may be said to advance the public welfare. Here, it can plausibly be said that the ordinance will further public welfare.Plaintiffs also argue the zoning ordinance does not permit one overlay district to be superimposed on another, and if done the purpose should be to impose more restrictive zoning requirements. However, the ordinance is silent as to whether an overlay district may be imposed on another and absent such regulation, the court defers to the legislation of the city. Further, the court notes that there is no case law requiring that an overlay district impose more stringent zoning requirements that the underlying zoning area.Farrington v. City of Cambridge, 81 Mass. App. Ct. 1135 (MA Ct of App. 5/14/2012)The opinion can be accessed at: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10360734939034903085&q=Farrington+v.+City+of+Cambridge&hl=en&as_sdt=2,33
Patricia Salkin | June 28, 2012 at 1:00 am | Categories: Amending Zoning, Current Caselaw, Spot Zoning | URL: http://wp.me/p64kE-1I4
Comment See all comments Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions. Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://lawoftheland.wordpress.com/2012/06/28/ma-app-court-upholds-amendment-creating-overlay-district-to-facilitate-university-expansion-and-finds-no-spot-zoning/  

 
Thanks for flying with WordPress.com