My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/05/2009
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
2009
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/05/2009
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 9:59:55 AM
Creation date
2/27/2009 11:57:36 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
03/05/2009
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
134
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />January 25, 20091 Volume 31 No.2 <br /> <br />Zoning Bulletin <br /> <br />leged violation would: (1) weigh too heavily in favor of the neighboring <br />landowners, giving the permit holder no finality or assurance; and (2) <br />leave the neighboring landowner without a remedy since Utah's doctrine <br />of zoning estoppel would prohibit a municipality from revoking a permit <br />if the permit holder had incurred eXtensive expense in reliance on the <br />permit. On the other hand, without notice of a land use decision, the <br />neighboring landowner's right to appeal a decision would be meaning- <br />less. Thus, the time period for appeal had to start, said the court, when <br />the neighboring landowner had actual or constructive notice of the issu~ <br />ance of a building permit. Having actual or constructive notice of the is- <br />suance of a building permit meant not only knowing the building permit <br />had been issued, but also having "knowledge of the facts that form the <br />basis of the party's objection to the permit before the appeal period be- <br />gins." "Accordingly, if the facts that form the basis for the-party's appeal <br />c[ould] be ascertained by a review of the permit application, the party <br />[would be] charged with knowledge of those facts once he or she ha[d] <br />actual or constructive notice of the permit's issuance. If, on the other <br />hand, the permit application d[id] not contain the facts ... then the ap- <br />peal period [would] not begin until the party receive[d] knowledge of <br />those facts from some other source." <br />Finding the Foxes had notice of the issuance of the building permit to <br />Legacy when construction began in thefall of2005, and that the Foxes' <br />notice of appeal was filed more than ten days after construction began, <br />the court concluded that the Foxes' appeal was untimely. <br /> <br />See also: Arkae Development, Inc. v. Zoning Rd. of Adjustment of City <br />of Ames, 312 N. W.2d 574 (Iowa 1981). <br /> <br />Case Note: The court noted that there could be exceptional circum- <br />stances that might allow an affected party to bring an appeal-even <br />after the appeal period had run-such as in cases involving fraud or <br />bribery. <br /> <br /> <br />12 <br /> <br />@ 2009 Thomson Reuters <br /> <br />90 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.