Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/02/1995

Home

Page 8- April 15, 1995 z.g, Jurisdiction-- Is School District's Boundary Decision a Land Use Decision? J.C. Reeves Corp. v. Sherwood Education District No. 88,1, 869 P. 2d 885 (Oregon) 1994 The Sherwood Education District decided not to initiate formal proceed- ings to change the boundaries of its school district. J.C. Reeves Corp. appealed the district's decision to the Land Use Board of Appeals. The board said the district's decision was not a "statutory land use deci- sion'' subject to the board's review, nor a decision that had a significant impact on present or future land use. The board decided it did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal and dismissed the case. J.C. Reeves appealed, arguing the board did have jurisdiction over the case, and that the district violated a land use statute. DECISION: Affirmed, in favor of the district. The board correctly found that the district's actions were not land use deci- sions or exercises of planning authority. Since those actions could not be char- acterized that way, the land use laws did not apply. Notice-- Landowner Says Defective Notice Makes Amendment Invalid Sch[tmacher v. Town of Jupiter, 643 So. 2d 8 (Florida) 1994 The town of Jupiter, Fla., amended its zoning ordinance so that it excluded automobile dealerships in the town. A company challenged the exclusion's validity in federal court, but the court upheld it. A landowner, Schumacher, then sued the town, claiming its notice of the proceedings regarding the amendment was defective. Schumacher had received notice of the proceedings and had extensive knowledge of the proceedings: he attended and participated in them and appeared at the final hearing to object to the amendment. The court found for the town. It held that the town acted properly and that Schumacher waived any defect in the notice by his knowledge of, and atten- dance at, the proceedings.- Schumacher appealed. DECISION: Affirmed, in favor of the town. The trial court correctly found that Schumacher waived any claimed de- fects in the notice. He had substantial and continuous knowledge .of the pro- ceedings and was able to present his obj6d!ions fully and adequately. This pre- vented him from challen~ing .the town's failure to comply strictly with statu- tory notice requirements. Restigouche Inc. v. Town of Jupiter, 845 ESupp. 1540 (1993). Corn v. City of Lauderdale Lakes, 997 F. 2d 1369 (1993). MaIIey v. Clay County Zoning Commission, 225 So. 2d 555 (1969).