Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/02/2010

Home

October 25, 2010 'Volume 41 No. 20 Zoning Bulletin Here, the court found: "The plain language of § 8-26 ... does not mandate that the [A]gency take any specific action, nor does it specify any time frame. Rather, it requires the [C]ommission to wait for the [Agency] to submit a report before it renders a decision." As for § 11.5, the court found that it "did not contain any express language invalidating the action of the [A]gency if the `decision and report' [was] not filed within fifteen days." Moreover, it found § 11.5 was clearly designed "to secure order, system and dispatch" —requir- ing the Commission not to decide the issues without considering the Agency's input. Having found the requirement to file a report was directory not mandatory, the court held that the Agency's failure to timely file the "decision and report" did not render invalid the Agency's decisions to approve the permits and recommend subdivision approval. See also: Lauer v. Zoning Com'n of Town of Redding, 246 Conn. 251, 716 A.2d 840 (1998). Proceedings to Amend —County Board Amends Proffer After Public Hearing Developer later challenges proffer as invalid, saying second hearing was required after amendment Citation: Arogas, Inc. v. Frederick County Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 2010 WL 3583931 (Va. 2010) VIRGINIA (09/16/10)—This case addressed whether a county board of supervisors was required to hold an additional public hearing when it amended the original rezoning proffer after the public hearing was closed. The Background/Facts: In early 2004, George M. and Carol T. Sem- peles submitted to the county board of supervisors (the "Board") a re- zoning application for property they owned in the county. As part of that rezoning application, the Sempeles also submitted a written prof- fer related to 3.4 acres of their property. The proffer was a voluntary commitment made by the Sempeles. They made the proffer in order to "facilitate approval of [their] ... rezoning request[] by ameliorating the impact of development of their property on the local infrastructure and the character and environment of adjoining land." The proffer pro- posed "prohibiting the wholesale or retail sale of diesel fuel" on the 3.4-acre parcel. In April 2004, the Board held a public hearing regarding the rezon- ing application. After the public hearing was closed, the Board mem- 4 ©2010 Thomson Reuters 58