Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Zoning Bulletin <br /> <br />to energy facilities that exclusively used wind power, including the <br />Project. <br />The county had also argued that the Council could not exercise <br />its preemption authority over the county because the. state's Growth <br />Management Act ("GMA") required the Council to comply with the <br />county's comprehensive land use plan and regulations. The court also <br />rejected that argument. The two state statutes presented an apparent <br />contradiction: A state agency could not both preempt local laws and <br />comply with such laws at the same time. When such a tension existed <br />between two statutes, the court said that the specific statute prevailed <br />over the general statute. Here, EFSLA was the specific statute because <br />it governed "a discrete and specific function of certifying sites for the <br />construction and operation of energy facilities." On the other hand, the <br />GMA was the general statute because it applied to "the comprehensive <br />planning and management of land within counties and cities." There- <br />fore, EFSLA was a specific exception to the general goals and proce- <br />dures of the GMA. The GMA did not supersede or repeal the Council's <br />preemption powers under EFSLA. <br /> <br />See also: State v. J.P., 149 Wash. 2d 444, 69 P.3d 318 (2003). <br /> <br />See also: Wark v. Washington Nat. Guard, 87 Wash. 2d 864, 557 P.2d <br />844 (1976). <br /> <br />Case. Note: The court also found that substantial evidence sup- <br />ported the Colincil's decision to grant Horizon's request. for <br />preemption. <br /> <br />Authority-Planning commission denies <br />subdivision application that fully complies with, <br />the county code <br /> <br />Applicant argues commission's denial exceeds its authority <br /> <br />Citation: Tony Ashburn & Son, Inc. v. Kent County Regional Planning <br />Com'n, 2008 WL 5114981 (Del. 2008) <br /> <br />DELAWARE (12/05/08)-Tony Ashburn & Son, Inc. ("Ashburn") <br />owned over 200 acres of land in the county (the "Property"). The <br />Property was zoned Agricultural Conservation ("AC"). An AC zone <br />permitted the development of single family houses at a density of up to <br />one unit per acre. In July 2006, Ashburn filed an Application for Sub- <br />division Plan Approval (the "Application") with the county Depart- <br /> <br />10 <br /> <br />Zoning Bulletin @ 2009 Thomson Reuters <br /> <br />76 <br />