Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/05/1995

Home

Page 6 August 15, 1995 Z.B. On May 18, 1993, Taylor's lawyer sent Duke a letter claiming the construc- tion of the second house violated the zoning ordinance. On June 10, the lawyer sent a second letter containing a similar complaint, but construction continued. On July 23, 1993, Taylor sued, asking a court to review the subdivision approval and the issuance of the second building permit. Taylor asked the court for an order stopping construction of the second house. Under state law, landowners who wanted to appeal a planning commission's final decision to court had to do so within 30 days. The statute stated that final action occurred when a governmental body voted to approve or disapprove a matter. Another statute said appeals from a zoning administrator's grant of a build- ing permit had to go to the board of adjustment within 30 days of the administrator's action. After the board of adjustment made afinal decision, the party had another 30 days to appeal to court. The trial court dismissed Taylor's lawsuit because Taylor filed it more than 30 days after the subdivision was approved and did not pursue his administra- tive appeal of the building permit issuance. On appeal, Taylor claimed the commission's decision was not final because it never gave him the required five days' notice of the proposed subdivision. According to Taylor, this meant the 30-day appeal period had not yet begun. DECISION: Affirmed. The trial court properly found that Taylor appealed the town officials' deci- sions too late. . Even if the commission and zoning administrator's decisions were wrong, Taylor did not take the proper actions to appeal those decisions within 30 days of learning about them. More than 30 days before he sued, Taylor had actual notice that a second permit had been issued..He became aware before May 18, 1993 (the day his lawyer wrote to Duke), that th6 second h6use was being built but did not sue until about 36 days later. Taylor also did not appeal the building administrator's decision to the right place he should have appealed to the board of adjustment before' going to court. Minton v. Fiscal Court of Jefferson County, 850 S. W. 2d 52 (1992). Burns v. Pearler, 722 S.W. 2d 725 (1986). ' Subdivision -- Must Mobile Home Park Comply With Village Subdivi.sion and Zoning Ordinances? Sandoval County Board of Corem is. sioners v. Ruiz, 893 P. 2d 482 (New Mexico) 1995 In 1987, the Ruizes bought a 47-acre parcel of land in Sandoval County, N.M. The parcel was outside the village of Corrales but within county and village planning and platting jurisdiction. No county zoning ordinances applied to the property, but there was a county ordinance which governed subdivision developments and required developers to gei approval from the county before subdividing their land. The county defined a subdivision as an area divided "into five or more parcels within three years for the purpose of sale or lease."