Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Zoning Bulletin <br /> <br />understand there were two interpretations and could articulate to the <br />Commission why its interpretation was the correct one. The court . <br />noted that agency interpretations were generally deferred to. Having <br />already found the Commission's interpretation of ~ 16-38 was rea- <br />sonable, the court deferred to it. The court concluded that S 16-38 <br />was not unconstitutionally vague as applied to Howeth and therefore <br />was not unconstitutionally vague on its face. <br /> <br />See also: Myers v. Zoning and Planning Commission of City of West <br />University Place, 521 S. W.2d 322 (Tex. Civ. App. Houston 1st Dist. <br />1975), writ refused n.r.e., (July 16,1975). <br /> <br />See also: City of Webster v. Signad, Inc., 682 S. W.2d 644 (Tex. App. <br />Houston 1st Dist. 1984), writ refused n.r.e., (June 5, 1985). <br /> <br />Case Note: Howeth also made several other claims against the <br />city and the Commission, which the lower court denied. The <br />appellate court found Howeth failed to challenge the findings <br />of fact and legal conclusions underlying the lower court's judg- <br />ment on those other claims. Accordingly, it upheld the lower <br />court's judgment. <br /> <br /> <br />12 <br /> <br />72 <br />