My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/09/2009
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
2009
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/09/2009
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 10:00:29 AM
Creation date
7/2/2009 11:58:58 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
07/09/2009
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
106
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 />June 10, 2009 -I Volume 3\ No. 11 <br /> <br />Zoning Bulletin <br /> <br />Open Door Law was satisfied by the Commission's pre-mediation pub- <br />lic meeting, which authorized its attorney to participate in the mediation <br />with full settlement authority. <br />The court agreed with the Commission. It explained that under In- <br />diana statutory law (Ind. Code SS 36-7-4-302(a); 36-7-4-402(a); 36- <br />7-4-701), the Commission was precluded from delegating authority to <br />its attorneys to approve subdivision plans. Under statute, the exclusive <br />control over the approval of subdivision plats was given to plan com- <br />miSSIons. And, a plan commission's act was deemed "not official" uriless <br />authorized, at a meeting, by a majority of the entire membership of the <br />Commission. Thus, final approval of LCTC's subdivision plat required <br />final approval by a majority of the Commission members at meetings <br />subject to the Open Door Law. Accordingly, the court concluded: "[b] <br />ecause the [Agreement] was thus not final until its approval by a major~ <br />ityofthe [Commission] at a public meeting, the Commission's failure to <br />promptly approve the subdivision did not constitute bad faith conduct <br />warranting sanctions." <br /> <br />See also: Noble County v. Roge1's, 745 N.E.2d 194 (Ind. 2001). <br /> <br />See also: Brownsburg Community School Corp. v~ Natare Corp., 824 <br />NE2d 336,2005-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) ¶ 74732 (Ind. 2005). <br /> <br />Case Note: In its decision, the court noted that governmental enti- <br />ties could not be held liable for treble damages because they were <br />punitive in nature. However, the court explained that the sanctions <br />authorized by the ADR Rples were: "more analogous to the exer- <br />cise of inherent judicial authority than to the imposition of punitive <br />damages in civil law suits." <br /> <br />Case Note: Concluding its decision, the court emphasized the ben- <br />efits of mediation, and commented that it would be "wise practice <br />'to include language in a settlement agreement that the agreement <br />is contingent upon compliance with the Open Door Law and that it <br />r"nust be approved at an open meeting.'" - <br /> <br /> <br />12 <br /> <br />- @ 2009 Thomson Reuters <br /> <br />64 <br /> <br />---------... <br />/' '\ <br />} <br /> <br />-,~. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.