Laserfiche WebLink
<br />January 25, 20091 Volume 3\ No.2 <br /> <br />Zoning Bulletin <br /> <br />the POO Act was "general" in its terms and did "not expressly reference <br />public entities," the Planning Act specifically authorized public entities <br />to overrule county planning decisions. The court said that before a later <br />statute of general terms, such as the POO Act, could be deemed to revoke <br />an existing statute that was specific in its terms, such as the Planning Act, <br />there had to be clear and unmistakable intent to do so. The court found <br />there was no such intent here. <br />, <br />Finally, the .court noted that its conclusion was consistent with the <br />purposes of both Acts. The Planning Act was meant to provide public <br />entities with maximum flexibility. The POO Act was meant to allow "the <br />flexibility necessary to permit adjustment to changing needs." "Requir- <br />ing public entities to comply with the stricter rules of the POO Act when <br />attempting to serve the public interest, as the County [suggested], would <br />undermine the purposes'of the Planning Act and would serve none of the <br />purposes of the POO Act," concluded the court. <br /> <br />See also: Reber v. South Lakewood Sanitation Dist., 147 Colo. 70,362 <br />P.2d 877 (1961). <br /> <br />See also: City of Colorado Springs v. Board of County Com'rs of County <br />of Eagle, 895 P.2d 1105 (Colo. Ct. App. 1994). <br /> <br />Case Note: The court also rejected the County's argument that the <br />District's legal action should be dismissed because the District had <br />not joined the owners of the Land as parties in the matter. <br /> <br />Commencement of Limitation Period-Planning <br />commission says neighbor's time to appeal <br />construction on adjacent property began when <br />building permit issued <br /> <br />Neighbor appellant contends. appeal period began when it <br />received notice of an alleged zoning violation <br /> <br />Citation: Fox v. Park City, 2008 UT 85, 2008 WL 5214301 (Utah 2008) <br /> <br />UTAH (12/16/08)-On July 14, 2005, the city's Community Planning <br />Development Department (the "Department") issued a building permit <br />to Legacy Development Group, LLC ("Legacy") for construction of three <br />~esidential buildings on property it owned in the city (the "Property"). <br />Legacy began construction on the three buildings in the fall of 2005. <br />Sometime in January 2006, Bret and Tawnya Fox (the "Foxes"), who <br />. owned a home within 300 feet of the Property, noticed that one of Lega- <br />cy's buildings was taller than the surrounding buildings. The Foxes then <br /> <br />10 <br /> <br />@ 2009 Thomson Reuters <br /> <br />88 <br />