Opinion ID: 2674691
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: More Changes to the Zoning Regulations

Text: Approximately five months later, sometime in late May to early June 2004, Sherman finished revising his plan. But the Town had already amended its zoning regulations. Garling Associates, which helped write the new regulations, did not tell Sherman about the changes even though it was advising Sherman about complying with the 2003 regulations. These amendments created several new requirements, further delaying Sherman. It took him approximately eleven months to once again revise his application. In May 2005 – five years after he first sought subdivision approval – he finally met with some success. The Planning Board approved the MareBrook proposal. But this success was not to last. The Town Board refused to entertain Sherman’s application, despite holding meetings concerning another development. ‐9‐ SHERMAN V. TOWN OF CHESTER One month later, the Town amended its zoning law for a third time without informing Sherman in advance. Sherman revised his application again, and in February 2006, the Town for the fourth time changed its zoning law without warning Sherman. Sherman responded by submitting yet another revised plan, this one in March 2007. That same month, the Town changed its zoning for the fifth time, and it once again did not let Sherman know these changes were coming. Fed up, Sherman filed suit in federal court in May 2008, a precursor to the case before us now.