Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/03/2009

Home

October 10, 2009\ Volume 3\ No. 19 Zoning Bulletin county's. potential liability served to disqualify him.. Van Hove had a dis- qualifying conflict of interest because: (1) his interest as a county commis- sioner in the potential liability of the county because of the zoning admin- istrator's mistake was "different from the interest of the members of the general public;" and (2) a reasonably-minded person would conclude that Van Hove's interest had the potential to influence his impartiality. Because of Van Hove's "possible influence" on the other Board mem- bers' votes, the court determined that the CUP should be vacated and a new hearing conducted without Van Hove's participation. See also: Hanig v. City of Winner, 692 N. W:2d 202 (S.D. 2005). See also: Barrett v. Union Twp. Comm., 230 N.J. Super. 195, 553 A.2d 62 (N.]. Super. A.D., 1989). Case Note: In its decision, the court noted that Van Hove's disquali- . fication was not simply because he simultaneously served as both a county commissioner and a Board member. t-for was he disqualified simply because he had knowledge of some of the facts prior to the CUP hearing. He was disqualified "because th~ facts showed that he was more deeply involved." He was concerned with the county's liability; and he had contacted both sides and had not informed the other Board members of these "ex parte communications." Case Note: The court also noted that the standard for disqualifica- tion in a regulatory or rule-making proceeding was different than the one it described for a quasi-judicial proceeding such as the CUP hearing. The standard for disqualification in a regulatory or rule- making proceeding "is that the official should be disqualified only when there has been a clear and convincing showing the official has an unalterably closed mind on matters critical to the disposition of the proceedi1:1g." 12 @ 2009 Thomson Reuters . 94 (j ,..-" ( ) I l /