Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/05/2009

Home

Zoning Bulletin calculating the 45 days. The court also rejected that argument. It noted that there was no clear legislative intent, such as with the use of the word "between," that days should be counted using a method other than that described in OCGA S 1-3-1. The court concluded that the coUnty had to follow the requirement of OCGA. ~ 36-66-4(a), as calcu- lated under OCGA S 1-3-1(d)(3). Since the county published the Notice more than 45 days prior to the hearing date on Lunsford's permit re- quest, the court held that the county failed to comply with OCGA S 36- 66-4(a). Accordingly, the county's approval of Lunsford's conditional use permit was invalid. See also: McClure v. Davidson, 258 Ga. 706,373 S.E.2d 617 (1988). See also: Tift v. City of Tifton, 214 Ga. 507, 105 S.E.2d 584 (1958). Preemption-County challenges State's authority to preempt county zoning laws and approve .wind turbine location County argues State preemption power is inapplicable to wind power projects and contradictory to other state law Citation: Residents Opposed to Kittitas Turbines v. State Energy Facil- ity Site Evaluation Council, 2008 WL 4939317 (Wash. 2008) WASHINGTON (11/20/08)-Horizon Wind Energy, LLC ("Ho- rizon") sought to construct a wind power project in the county (the "Project"). In furtherance of that goal, it filed an application with the state's Energy FacilitySite Evaluation Council (the "Council"). The state's energy facilities site locations act ("EFSLA") governed the location, construction, and operation conditions of energy facilities in the state. Under EFSLA, an application to construct an energy facil- ity required, among other things, a site certification. Site certification authorized the applicant to construct and operate an energy facility in lieu of any other permit or document required by any other agency or subdivision. The Council administered the site certification process. EF- SLA expressly preempted energy facility certification decisions by other governmental entities. However, EFSLA required the Council to de- termine if an application complied with a local government's land use laws. If not, under Council rules, an applicant was required to make all reasonable efforts to resolve the noncompliance. After attempting to resolve noncompliance issues with the local jurisdiction, an applicant could request preemption of the local laws by the Council. Horizon's application was not consistent with the county's code (the "Code"). The comity's Wind Farm Resource Overlay Zone ordinance 8 Zoning Bulletin @ 2009 Thomson Reuters 74 -'\ J '\ I ;' I: i! j: i P I ~ il \\ ;i r " II !i if " Ii :1 I :1 1