07/01/10 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

May 10, 2010 1 Volume 41 No. 9 Zoning Bulletin Cedar Ridge's right to develop its Property was not prejudiced by the Board's procedural error. "The Board's denial... was not a final denial, and [Cedar Ridge] was provided with details on the information they could provide to the Board on a subsequent subdivision application in order to gain approval." Accordingly, the court affirmed the Board's denial of Cedar Ridge's application. . See also: Comer v. County of Twin Falls, 130 Idaho 433, 942 P.2d SS7 (1997). Case Note: As noted, the Board's denial of Cedar Ridge's applica- tion had been because of Cedar Ridge's failure to provide certain information with respect to the proposed subdivision. The court found that Cedar Ridge did have a duty under the county subdi- vision ordinance to provide the Board with that information and failed to do so. Therefore, the court concluded that the Board properly denied the Application. Standing—Citizens challenge approval of development, saying it would increase water pollution and injure.their health Developer says citizens lack standing because any health injuries are common to all in the community Citation: Morra v. Grand County, 2010 UT 21, 2010 WL 1189818 (Utah 2010) UTAH (04/30/10)—This case involves the issue of whether allega- tions of health injuries from increased pollution from development are sufficiently personal and particularized to confer standing (i.e., the le- gal right to bring a court action) to the challenger. The Background/Facts: In 2002, the County Council (the "Coun- cil") approved a 2,000 -acre planned unit development (the "Cloudrock Development"). That approval was conditioned upon terms set out in a development agreement between the county and the developer. In 2006, Cloudrock Land Company, LLC ("CLC") obtained the rights of the original developer of Cloudrock Development. In October 2006, CLC presented to the county planning commission (the "Com- mission"), an Amended Plan for the Cloudrock Development. The Commission conditionally approved the Amended Plan, subject to certain changes being made in the development agreement. In 2007, the Council passed Ordinance 454, which approved both the Amended Plan for the Cloudrock Development and an amended version of the development agreement. © 2010 Thomson Reuters 46