Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/02/1998

Home

Page 6m February 10, 1998 Z.B. the proposed reclamation plan that envisioned filling the quarry with water didn't meet city code requirements. Hoover appealed again, arguing the board acted illegally and arbitrarily because no evidence supported the board's denial of its permit application. The appeals court reversed the trial court a second time. It held that courts couldn't determine whether an administrative decision was supported by the evidence unless the administrative body made findings of facts setting forth the reasons for its decision. It found the board acted arbitrarily by denying Hoover's application when four of the five board members at the hearing be- lieved Hoover had met the legal requirements for a permit. It also found two board members acted illegally by telling a board member they would abstain from voting it?he didn't resign from the board. (The member they wanted to resign was named Hoover; it was unclear if there was any relation to the mining company.) Before the trial court once again, a dispute arose as to the scope of the appeals court's decision. Hoover chimed the appeals court instructed the trial court to order the board to issue Hoover the permit. The board, however, claimed the court had to return the matter back to the board for it to consider Hoover's application based on the evidence presented at the original hearing, along with any new evidence. The court returned the case to the board for it to consider the case based on the previous evidence, "together with such additional evidence as may be offered by any party as to changed circumstances that have occurred since it closed the record." Hoover appealed yet again, arguing the court should have ordered the board to issue the permit. DECISION: Affirmed, as modified. The trial court properly declined to order the board to issue Hoover the conditionaI use permit. The board, however, had to consider Hoover's applica- tion based solely on the evidence presented at its original hearing. The court shouldn't have ordered the board to consider additional evi- dence regarding changed circumstances. The original hearing provided Hoover and all other interested parties with a full and fair opportunity to present evi- dence. Reopening the record would only give the parties "a second bite at the apple." The appeals court originally reversed the board's decision not because of defects in the fact-finding process or because the record contained inade- quate evidence to support the board's decision, but rather because the board didn't consider the evidence in a fair and legal manner. · Requiring additional evidentiary hearings would be inconsistent with a key principle of zoning ordinances: that the interests of the public and developers were best served by prompt consideration and disposition of all zoning applications. Five years had passed since the board's original hearing, and there may have been changes in the property surrounding the proposed quarry site. Reopening the record to accept additional proof of these changes, though, would provide an incentive for others to use the courts to delay local zoning decisions. Hoover's proposal to operate a quarry in the area had been well