Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/06/2004

Home

Z.B. April 10, 2004 -- Page 3 including the condition the premises not be operated in a manner creating a nuisance to the neighbors. Ultimately, the permit was correctly revoked. Hearing -- Witnesses would testify planning director was threatened to oppose permit Lower court fails to allow witnesses' testimony Citation: Marrb~ Marietta Material bw. v. Dallas County, Supreme Court of Iowa, No. 11/02-1855 (2004) IOWA (02/25/04) -- Martin Marietta Materials Inc. applied for a conditional use permit from the county to use a portion of its property for sand and gravel operations. The permit was denied, however. Later, Martin Marietta found two witnesses who would testify that tvlcConnell, the director of planning and development, had been threatened with the loss oE his job if he did not recommend against the permit application. Initially, he had been in hvor of the perm/t, but had abruptly changed bis mind and recommended against the application. According to one of the witnesses, he had made public statements that the best use of the property was for sand and gravel operations, but for political reasons, that would never happen. Martin Marietta sued, and the court ruled in favor of the county. In making the decision, the court refused to hear the testhnony of Martin Marietta's new witnesses. Martin Marietta appealed, arguing the witnesses' testimony should have been allowed. DECISION: Reversed. The testimony should have been allowed. The testimony of both witnesses supported Martin Marietta's claim the board of adjustment decision was the product of b4d fa/th or improper conduct} If McConnell's true opinion was what the witnesses claimed it was -- and if McConnell had rendered that opinion to the board of adjustment-- its deci- sion might have been to grant the permit. Importantly, the testimony, if believed, would have supported a f'mding that the proceedings before the board of adjustment were so tainted, that the decision could not stand. Hearing -- Commissioner clearly makes up mind before variance hearing Tells e,xeryotte he will ~ote for variance before he hears e~idence Cira. tion: Eczcrer v. Bonnet Co~m~, Supreme Co~t~r of Idaho, Nos. 28092 29137 (2004) IDAHO ({)2/2'7/04') -- Harris received a variance from the local Setback quirements to build a boathouse on his property. Eacre.: ,?2,~:;ed the variance, .ztaim~n,z it was the result of unconstimtion~ 2004 !?~u~nlan ?ubiislning Group. Any reproduction ts prohibited. For more inlormation pies,se ceil ~,517! ,542-80.~-83. 139