Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/06/2008

Home

January 10, 20081 Volume 21 No.1 board of county commissioners by June 2006.. Kendale interpreted this directive to mean that it had an option to choose either of the deadlines, rather than being obliged to comply with both. Kendale did not obtain approval of all preliminary plats by the six-month deadline. About a month after the deadline passed, a Kendale employee sent an e-mail to the county's chief planner, which asked if there was "anything [it] need[ed] to do on [its] con- currency since [it] should still be able to meet the :final plat and ac- ceptance deadline of 6/16/06." The county official responded that the permit status was "okay." By September 2005, Kendale still had not submitted prelimi- nary plats for approval. Another email correspondence between a Kendale employee and the chief planner showed that the plan- ner subsequently stated that, under the ordinance, the CRC had expired in December 2004 because of Kendale's failure to submit preliminary plats. Ultimately, Kendale reapplied for a CRC, but its application was denied. The' county did offer Kendale the option of utilizing the ':fair share" provision of the ordinance. Kendale would be allowed to continue with the project if it paid the county's fair share assess- ment of more than $625,000. Kendale filed an administrative ap- peal, arguing that the CRC had not expired and that the chief planner had assured via email that the CRC was still valid even after it missed the December 2004 deadline. 'Kendale also claimed that the county erroneously denied its renewed application. Finally, Kendale argued that the fair share assessment should be redacted to the date of the chief planner's misstatement that the CRC was still in effect. After a hearing, all of Kendale's claims were rejected. The hear- ing officer found that the chief planner's em ail came after the CRC had expired, and was therefore immaterial, and the expiration of the CRC was the result of negligence on Kendale's part. Kendale appealed the hearing officer's decision to court, asking for review of the hearing officer's decisions. Although the county asked the court to refuse to review Kend- ale's claims, it granted Kendale's request. The trial court found that the hearing officer had not erroneously denied Kendale's claims, but it agreed with Kendale's assessment that it should only have to pay a fair share of road improvements through the date of the planner's erroneous email. The fair share amount based on that date was approximately $190,000. The county appealed. DECISION: Judgment in favor of the county. 9 125