Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/07/2015

Home

Zoning Bulletin April 10, 2015 1 Volume 9 1 Issue 7 In analyzing § 64.875, the court found that the statute did not define the term "hearing" or prescribe the requirements for a valid hearing. The court also found no guidance from judicial interpretation of the "hearing" requirement (in prior decisions issued by Missouri courts on the issue). Thus, the court looked to the plain language of the statute. Since the stat- ute required public notice of such hearings, the court concluded that a legally sufficient hearing must be'public. Looking at the dictionary defini- tion of "hearing," the court found that its meaning included "an op- portunity to be heard, to present one's side of a case . . . ." Thus, the court concluded that "while the specific procedures for conducting the hearing can be tailored to meet logistical necessities, at a minimum, the hearings required by § 64.875 must be public and give an opportunity for the public to present its views about the subject matter of the proposed zoning amendment." Analyzing LEO 's petition against that standard, the court found that LEO stated a valid claim for relief. The court remanded the matter to the circuit court to try the merits of the claim. See also: State ex rel. Freeze v. City of Cape Girardeau, 523 S. W.2d 123 (Mo. Ct. App. 1975). See also: Yost v. Fulton County, 256 Ga. 324, 348 S.E.2d 638 (1986). See also: Appeal ofKurren, 417 Pa. 623, 208 A.2d 853 (1965). Case Note: LEO had also alleged that the zoning amendments were unlawful because they did not promote the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the Franklin County. The circuit court had also dismissed that count of LEO'S petition. The appellate court determined that it was "unnecessary" for it to determine whether the zoning amendments promoted public health, safety, and welfare because the circuit court first had to determine whether the Commission conducted a legally sufficient hearing. Zoning News from Around the Nation NEW HAMPSHIRE The Concord City Council was expected to consider a draft zoning ordinance that would allow two new uses in an industrial zone: an alterna- tive treatment center for both growing and selling medical marijuana, and a center only for growing medical marijuana. The draft zoning code would also allow a center only for distribution to operate in an institutional zone. Source: Concord Monitor; www.concordmonitor.com © 2015 Thomson Reuters 11