Laserfiche WebLink
<br />November 10, 20091 Volume 31 No. 21 <br /> <br />Zoning ~ulletin <br /> <br />signage by appraximately half aver a twenty-eight-year periad." In ather=-\ <br />wards, the Code was canstitutianal because: (1) the city had shawn that ( . ) <br />its "appraach taameliarating the billbaard prablem[s]" af safety and aes- <br />thetics was "carefully calculated"; and (2) that, in the c~ty, "because af <br />their number, caminercial billbaards pase a greater nuisance than do. non- <br />cammercial anes." <br /> <br />See also.: Metramedia. Inc. v. City af San Diego., 453 U.S. 490. 101 S. <br />Ct. i882, 69 L. Ed. 2d 800, 16 Env't. Rep. Cas. (BNA) 1057,11 En- <br />vtl. L. J!..ep. 20600 (1981)~ . <br /> <br />See also.: City af Cincinnati v. Discovery Netwark, Inc., 507 U.S. <br />410, 113 S. Ct. 1505, 123 L. Ed. 2d 99, 21 Media L. Rep. (BNA) <br />1161 (1993). <br /> <br />Validity of Zoning Regulations-County <br />ordi.nance allows only one extensiolJ of time to <br />obtain approval for each phase, of final plat <br /> <br />After county denies developer's request for second extension <br />of time, developer challenges ordinance <br /> <br />Citatian: Dry Creek Partners, LLC, v. Ada Caunty Cam'rs, ex reZ. <br />State, 2009 WL 3152809 (Idaho. 2009) <br /> <br />IDAHO (10/02/09)-,--Harold and Patricia Brush awned property in <br />the caunty. They planned to. develapthat praperty into. Red Hawk Es- <br />tates Subdivisian. In furtherance af that plan, they entered into. a devel- <br />apment agreement with Dry Creek Partners, LLC. <br />In 2002, the Ada Caunty Baard af CalIlfIlissianers (the "Baard") <br />appraved a planned unit develapment far Red Hawk Estates, which <br />was to. be campleted in three phases. <br />Dry Creek abtained the preliminary and final plats far Phase I af the <br />subdivisian. Dry Creek was required to. abtain final plat approval far <br />Phase II af the subdivisian an ar befare July 27,2006. It was unable to. <br />do. sa, and filed a request far extensian af time with the caunty devel- <br />apment services ("ACDS"). <br />The county granted Dry Creek's request, giving it until July 27, <br />2007, to. abtain final plat appraval. . <br />By June 2007, Dry Creek still had nat campleted the final plat. It <br />filed a secand request far a time extension with ACDS. <br />ACDS denied Dry Creek's request for a secand extension. The <br />Caunty Cade ~ 8-7-6-B-2 (the "Cade") permitted anly ane time exten- <br />sian far each phase af the final plat per applicant. Because Dry Creek <br />had previausly received a time extension far filin,g the final plat far <br /> <br />4 <br /> <br />@ 2009 Thomson Reuters <br /> <br />32 <br /> <br />(~) <br /> <br />. \ <br />\ ! <br />-~/ <br />