Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/02/2009

Home

March 10,20091 Volume 3\ No.5 Zoning Bulletin by the public during the public hearing on June 9, 2005. The court held that such an expression of opinion was permissible while the PZC was delib~rating. See also: Peinson v. Conservation Commission of Town of Newtown, 180 Conn. 421, 429 A.2d 910 (1980). See also: Sawin Associates v. Planning and Zoning Com'n of Town of South Windsor, 23 Conn. App. 370, 580 A.2d 91 (1990). Case Note: In its decision," the court noted that the contested com- munications involved a memorandum sent by one PZC member to the other members through an e-mail. The court said th~t had the recipients of the e-mail responded and there had been some "collective back and forth of e-mails," that would have been con- sidered a "meeting," triggering open meeting requirements under state law. Right to Referendum-Labeling its action I1legislative/' county adopts development agreement as a land use ordinance ("") County later asserts action was administrative and not subject to citizen referendum Citation: Save Beaver County v. Beaver County, 2009 UT 8, 2009 WL 233339 (Utah 2009) UTAH (02/03/09)-Mount Holly Partners ("Mt. Holly") sought to develop land it owned in the county into a gated club with a golf course, private ski resort, and residential units. Mt. Holly's concept plan was approved by the county planning commission (the "Commis- sion"), conditioned on the adoption of a comprehensive development agreement. After public hearing, the Commission formulated a devel- opment agreement recommendation and scheduled a public hearing to receive comment on the recommendation. The public hearing was scheduled for April 2, 2007. After the public hearing, the resulting development agreement was executed on April 25, 2007. Five days later, the Commission enacted Ordinance 2007- J 04 (the "Ordinance"), which adopted the development agreement as a . land use ordinance of the county. 8 @ 2009 Thomson R!"uters 110 \ }