Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/05/2009

Home

Zoning Bulletin that [could) be reversed." SOST's descriptions of the Referendum and Ordinance failed to meet the requirements and purpose of S 19- 101(A), concluded the court: "[T]he petitions merely describe[d) the purported anticipatory effect of the provisions, and fail[ed) to identify in any meaningful way any of the provisions of the (Referendum and Ordinance), let alone the principal ones."-Rather, SOST's descriptions were, "at II).ost, 'uninformative' and 'unhelpful.'" They contained "subjective opinions" that did not describe any of the principal provi- sions. Moreover, they were "misleading" since they did "not substan- tially describe any provision" of the Referendum or Ordinance. See also: Sherrill v. City of Peoria, 189 Ariz. 537, 943 P.2d 1215 (1997). See also: Committee for Preservation of Established Neighborhoodsv. RIffel, 213 Ariz. 247, 141 P.3d 422 (Ct. App. Div. 1 2006), review de- nied, (Nov. 28, 2006). Case Note: The court also warned that the insertion of "catch- word phrases ... to call attention to their specific cause" was "not appropriate" in a referendum petition's statutorily-required )de- scription of the measure sought to be referred. . Notice- ~eighbor contends permit is invalid because county failed to provide timely notice of public hearing . County contends it measured the time period properly and . complied with state and local law Citation: C & H Development, LLC v. Franklin County, 2008 WL 4966221 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008). GEORGIA (11/24/08)-Aubrey Lunsford applied to the county for a conditional use perniit to construct chicken houses on his property. In relation to that application, the county published notice (the "No- tice") in the local newspaper as to the date of the public hearing on Lunsford's request. The county published the Notice on December 22, 2005. The county's Board of Commissioners (the "Board") conducted the public hearing and approved the conditional use permit on Mon- day, February 6, 2006. C & H Development, LLC ("C & H") owned property adjacent to and downhill from Lunsford's property. After Lunsford's condi- 6 Zoning Bulletin @ 2009 Thomson Reuters 72 , \ !