Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/04/2012

Home

Zoning Bulletin July 25, 2012 I Volume 6 I Issue 14 grant an application to rezone the property and permit requested conditional uses." Since the two individuals were within 200 feet of the proposed rezoned tract and had received notice, the court found that the notice requirement established that those individuals' property interests were affected by the Board's decision "in a manner different than that suffered by the public gener- ally," and they were "more than just an elector and resident taxpayer affected by the . . decision." Accordingly, the court concluded that the Council established that at least some of its members were "aggrieved" by the Board's decision and would have had standing to appeal the decision in their own right. Therefore (and because the Board and Great Northern did not challenge the Council's satis- faction of the two remaining requirements for associational standing), the court concluded that the Council had associational standing to appeal the Board's decision to the district court. The court went on to uphold the Board's decision to grant Great Northern's application to rezone the property. The court found the Board did not, as the Council had argued, misinterpret or misapply the applicable zoning ordinance when it granted to the application to rezone and allowed the requested conditional uses for the property. See also: Nodak Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ward County Farm Bureau, 2004 ND 60, 676 N. W.2d 752 (N.D. 2004). See also: Hagerott v. Morton County Bd. of Com'rs, 2010 ND 32, 778 N. W..2d 813 (N.D. 2010). Case Note: Along with the Council, Neighbors United, an unincorporated association that promotes the protection of farming and ranching, as well as individual landowners, also challenged the Board's approval of the zone change. Because Neighbors United and the individual landowners did not appeal the matter to the Supreme Court ofNorth Dakota, the court did not address whether they had standing. Zoning News from Around the Nation CONNECTICUT Under a new state law, zoning enforcement officers in Connecticut "will no longer be subject to being sued for triple damages by angry landowners." Previously, "zoning enforcement officers were liable for triple damages if they issued a citation `frivolously or without probable cause' against a landowner. Under the new law, they are liable for actual damages, and then only if they are found to have issued a citation `maliciously or wantonly.' " Source: The Hour; www.thehour.com MAINE The Maine Supreme Judicial Court has struck down a "consent judgment" ©2012 Thomson Reuters 11