Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/10/2003

Home

194 Page 6- June 10, 2003 development of Jakoubek's property and from !ssuing any permits for the same purpose. At the trial, the Keeches offered several exh/bits and pieces of evidence. A copy of the 2000 comprehensive plan and related regulations pointing to a new official map was submitted. However, the new official map, which would:indi- cate the zoning classification of the Jakoubek property, was never offered into evidence. The court dismissed the action, noting that 99-3 had been superseded by the 2000 comprehensive plan, and thus the Keeches' claims were moot, or no longer at issue. The Keeches appealed, challenging the court's finding that.the 2000 zon- ing'regulations and map were properly adopted. DECISION: Affirmed. The Keeches could not pur{ue their claims. The 99-3 ordinance had become ineffective by the adoption of the 2000 comprehensive plan, and the Keeches' challenge to the propriety of 99-3 be- came moot. Since the Keeches failed to submit the new zoning map with other items of evidence, they failed to meet the/r burden of proving the invalidity of the 2000 comprehensive plan. The Keeches failed to provide evidence of impropriety regarding the 2000 zoning regulations, comprehensive plan, and map. Citation: Keech v. The ~,~lla~e of Rayraond, Nebraska Court of Appeals, No. A-01-651 (2003). see also: Giger v. City of Omaha, 442 N.W. 2d 182 (19_89). see also: DLH Inc. v. Lancaster County Board of Commisaioners, 648 N. W. 2d 277 (2002). Moratorium -- One-year moratorium allowed certain developers to apply for an exemption ~Developer failed to respond to request for more information NORTH CAROLINA (04/15/03) --The town council of Weddington adopted an Interim Development Ordinance (IDO), which set forth a moratorium on the process of approving subdivision plats. The moratorium was to expire after one year or until the adoption of a comprehensive land use plan. The stated purpose of the moratorium was to establish permanent standards for develop- ment in the town so as to protect tl~e health, safety, and welfare of the residents. The IDO had a provision protecting developers who had not received plat approval and allowed them to apply for an exemption under Section 8 of the lDO, entitled "Vested Rights Determination." If the applicant was found to have vested rights under this provision,their projects could continue in devel- opment in accordance with regulations in effect pr/or to the I_DO.