Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/07/1995

Home

z.g. February 1995 -- Page 3 entire file. The §earing proceeded, and a petition by some neighbors who thought the junkyard was not suitable for the area was read into the record. When the hearing was o~er, Kiem agreed not to vote because he had not reviewed the whole file. Kiem did n~t vote and the commission vote ended in a 3-3 tie. The chair- man then propc~sed they postpone another vote until Kiem read the record of the two prior rrleetings to familiarize himself with the application. About 20 h~ had said he did not know enough about the issue, Kiem said he minutes after had read the mihutes of prior meetings and now felt able to vote. The commis- sion voted 4-3 t~o approve Nedobity's application. Neighbors ~ued to overturn the decision. They claimed Kiem voted with- out enough knoMedge of the facts. The court dismissed the case, and the neigh- bors appealed. ~ DECISION: Affirmed. The trial co/Irt had enough evidence to find ~hat Kiem was qualified to vote based on his re~iew of the issues and evidence raised at the prior hearings. The neighbors failed~ to prove Kiem's vote was unlawful m they misinterpreted the amount of time ~hat passed between hi~ agreement not to vote and his decision to vote, and the~ did not understand that he reviewed the minutes of the previ- ous meetings b~fore going to the final hearing. Loh v. Towr~ Plan and Zoning Commission, 282 A.2d 894 (1971). Ordinance -- Neighbors Say Ordinance Doesn't Allow Go-Cart Track in Resort Zone Seawall EaSt Townhomes Association Inc. v. City of Galveston, 879 S. W. 2d 363 (Texas) 1994 The city of .~. alveston, Texas, owned property at Stewart Beach on which a go-cart track w~is to be built and operated. The land was in a "resort" zone. Outdoor co~nmercial amusement u§es were allowed in resort zones. The I zoning ordinance defined these.uses as amusement enterprises that offered en- tertainment or g~mes of skill to the general public for a fee. It said the activities included, but &ere not limited to, golf driving ranges, amusement parks, parasailing, bu~gee jumping, and "other specialty recreational activities not cited by the Zoning Standards." Go-cai-t tracks were not specifically listed as permitted uses ig resort zones. Seawall Eas[ Townhomes Association Inc., a neighboring residential com- plex, sued the c~ty and the Zoning Board of Adjustment to block the go-cart track. Seawall ~ygued that go-cart tracks were specifically cited as permitted uses in a "recreation" zone. Therefore, go-cart tracks were specifically cited by the Zoning Stan~dards, so they could not be one of the allowed outdoor com- mercial amusement activities allowed in resort zones. The city an~ the zoning board asked the court for judgment without a trial based on a findi.~g that a go-cart track was a permitted use in the zoning dis- trict. The court ~ranted the board.judgment, and Seawall appealed.