Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Zoning Bulletin <br /> <br />a law firm, which represented Cole (who was affiliated with MW) two ---\ <br />years prior to MW's submission of its variance application and had not ' ) <br />represented any entity or individual related to MW while MW's appli- <br />cation was pending, could not reasonably be viewed as improperly in- <br />fluencing Nicosia's judgment relating to MW's variance application. Ac- <br />cordingly, the court concluded the facts did not create a disqualifying m- <br />terest for Nicosia. <br /> <br />See also: Haggerty v. Red Bank Borough Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 385 <br />N.]. Super. 501, 897 A.2d 1094 (App. Div. 2006). <br /> <br />See also: Kremer v. City of Plainfield, 101 N.]. Super. 346, 244 A.2d 335 <br />(Law Div. 1968). <br /> <br />Case Note: In its decision, the court made clear that if Nicosia's <br />father's law firm was representing MW while its application was <br />before the Board-albeit in an unrelated matter, the appearance of <br />impropriety. WQuld have been sufficient to disqualify Nicosia from . <br />participation in the Board's review of MW's variance application. <br /> <br />Proceedings-BZA denies project a'ppIication, () <br />finding it failed to meet ordinance <br />requirements <br /> <br />Applicant argues denial should be estopped because <br />commission gave it wrong version of ordinance <br /> <br />Citation: TerraNovaDairy, LLC v. Wabash County Bd. of Zoning Ap- <br />peals, 890 N.E.2d 98 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) <br /> <br />INDIANA (07/17/08)-Terra Nova Dairy, LLC sought to construct <br />a concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO) in the county. To that <br />end, Terra Nova met with Mike Howard, the director of the county's <br />Plan Commission. They met to discuss Terra Nova's desire to obtain an <br />improvement location petmit (ILP) for construction of the CAFO pur- <br />suant to the county's zoning ordinance. At that meeting, Howard gave <br />Terra Nova a copy of an ILP application form and what turned out to <br />be an outdated copy of the ordinance (the "pre-2002 Ordinance"). Terra <br />Nova later filed an ILP application with the Plan Commission. <br />Eventually, the Plan Commission denied Terra Nova's ILP application. <br />TerraNova appealed to the county Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA). <br />The BZA denied Terra Nova's ILP application. The denial was based, <br />in part, on the fact that Terra Nova did not apply for a certificate of oc- <br /> <br />6 <br /> <br />.@ 2008 Thomson Reuters/West <br /> <br />78 <br />