Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/06/2004

Home

Page 4 -~- April 10, 2004 Z.B. bias in the mind of Mueller, a member of the county board of commissioners. Prior meetings showed Mueller had a personal interest in promoting a blan- ket variance for the whole area. Muetler had encouraged the board to gent the variance because of the amount of money Harris had invested in the project. He also said he'd driven by the property and talked to Harris several times on his own, and it was clear Mueller knew all of the facts before the variance hearing, and possessed inlbrmation the two other commissioners didn't share. Finally, Muetler stated before the hearing he was definitely going to vote for the variance. Eacret sued, and the court ruled in his favor. The board appealed, arguing the variance was correctly ganted. DECISION: Altirmed. The variance was properly vacated on the basis of the bias of one of the commissioners. Muetler's comments and contacts with Harris regarding the variance vio- lated Eacret's due process rights. Under the circumstances, Mueller's com- ments not only created the appearance of impropriety, they also underscored the likelihood he could not fairly decide the issue. The fzicts supported the conclusion Mueller's mind was irrevocably closed on the subject of Harris's setback variance. Since the variance was ~anted with a vote of two to one, Mueller's participation required a reversal of the board's decision. Preheating statements made by a decision maker were not fatal to the hditv of a zoning decision as long as the statements did not preclude the find- lng the decision maker maintained an open mind and continued to listen to all the evidence before making a final decision. Consequently, when a decision maker would not listen to the evidence with an often mind, would not apply the existing law, or had already made up his or her mind regarding the out- come of the hearing, the zoning decision was ultimately void. Rezoning -- Land rezoned to allow for funeral home Neighbor claims decision arbitrary because it affects her lifestyle Ciratioru B,~tdre,~tx v. Brmm Invesm~enr~' LLC, Court of Appeal of Louisiana, 5th Circ,,tit, No. 03-CA-1070 (2004) LOUISIANA (02/23/04) -- Boudreaux lived next to an established business. In ~999, Brown purchased the business's-lot and buklding in preparation, to operate a funeral home. 'TO do so, Brown requested the town council rezone the property to a different type of commercial use ailowing such businesses, The council agreed to Brown's request. Boudreaux had a swimming pool and often played music and had barbeques m her backyard, which offended funeral home patrons. On numerous occa- sion:.;, ,zar:~ ~t ,._-he funeral home btecked tl~e rear right-of-way to her property. ~ 20~-; ~3u~r~ian 9ublisp,~ng Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information olease carl (617) 542-0048, 140