|
<br />
<br />\ .
<br />
<br />,
<br />, ,
<br />
<br />January 25,2010 I Volume 41 No.2
<br />
<br />. ' Zoning Bulletin
<br />
<br />is "not, reasonably calculated to reach those who could easily be in- C
<br />formed by other means at hand." . ,,'J
<br />, The ,court found that, here, the City's notice was not "reasonably
<br />calculated tb inform the [Passalinos] of the [hearings on the Ordi-
<br />nance]." Here, the City could have easily' perused tax records and
<br />found the addresses of the owners of the 85 properties affected by the
<br />, Ordinance. Mailing notice to the oWners of the 8S affected parcels '
<br />would not have been "Unreasonable,'" "impossible," or, "impractical."
<br />Thus, concluded the ,court, minimum compliance with 'the noticere-
<br />quirements of S 11-13-2 was not sufficient' to satisfy, the due process
<br />requirements as applied to the facts of this case. '
<br />
<br />See also: Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306,
<br />'70 S. Ct. 652, 94 LEd. 865 (1950). '
<br />
<br />See also: Wells v. Village of Libertyville, 153 Ill. App. 3d 361, 106 Ill.
<br />Dec. 193,505 N.E.2d 740 (2d Dist. 1987).
<br />
<br />C~e Note: The court clarified that its holding "does not affect the '
<br />continuing validity of the use of publication notice under section 11-
<br />13-2 of the [D.1inois] Municipal Code ...." Rathel; the court held only
<br />that "in this case, notice was insufficient such that [the Ordinance]
<br />was invalid in its application to [the Passalinos'] property ...."
<br />
<br />C"
<br />.: ,', \
<br />..... .t
<br />
<br />Time for Proceeding-Applicant says neighbor's
<br />appeal of the issuance of Cl conditional use
<br />'permit is untimely
<br />
<br />, Parties dispute how the neighbor's motion for reconsideration
<br />affected the statutorily- mandated time to appeal '
<br />
<br />Citation: Mellish v. Frog Mountain Pet Care, 2009 WL 4815955
<br />(Wash. Ct. App. Div. 22009')
<br />
<br />WASHINGTON (12/1SI09)-This case addressed the novel issues
<br />of whether: (1) a county hearing examiner's decision is a "final deter-
<br />mination" under Washington's Land Use Petition Act ("LUPA") when
<br />a motion for recof.!,sideration is pending; and (2) whether a reconsId-
<br />eration motion tolls the time for appeal.
<br />The BackgroundIFacts: Frog MOQD.tain Pet Care sought to"remod-
<br />el and expand a dog and cat boarding facility (the "Facility") that it
<br />owned in' the county. In furtherance of its plans, Frog Mountain ap-
<br />plied to the county for a conditional use permit and minor variance. , ,C",!'
<br />Martin Mellish owned property adjacent to the Facility. He opposed
<br />Frog Mountain's application. He thought "the proposed expansion
<br />
<br />6 @ 2010 Thomson Reuters
<br />
<br />. ."
<br />...: f...." .
<br />
<br />.:". .. :-;~:._~: ;"~~':.i~:--:.::.~
<br />
<br />,. ,,'.., ,~,.'
<br />
<br />.. ,'. ~~.
<br />
<br />",i;
<br />
<br />. '.
<br />
<br />70
<br />
<br />. . .... :
<br />. ... :., ..:.
<br />
<br />:' '. .
<br />'" :..
<br />
<br />. . ~ ...
<br />
<br />.'
<br />
<br />. . ....,... -:.. ..:.-....-....-.-....:.
<br />
<br />-6
<br />
<br />!. ..
<br />
<br />. "
<br />
<br />.. ~ .
<br />
<br />. , -....-'.
<br />
<br />~~
<br />
<br />.:~r";)
<br />:~./'.
<br />
<br />'~:~ ..
<br />
<br />:. L'
<br />
<br />t:~"fjft ..:
<br />
<br />r'
<br />
<br />.... :'
<br />
|