Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning Bulletin June 10, 2015 1 Volume 9 i Issue 11 <br />trolling weight to local zoning provisions," it also should not "arbitrarily <br />[override] all important legitimate local interests," but should consider <br />local objections and suggestions "in order to minimize the conflict as <br />much as possible." Nevertheless, while DOT must carefully consider the <br />local municipality's zoning concerns, "the `ultimate authority over the <br />regulating and licensing of aeronautical activities and facilities' remains <br />with the [DOT]." In other words, the DOT Commissioner has sufficient <br />statutory authority "to override local zoning decisions," said the court. <br />Here, the court found that the DOT gave the required careful consid- <br />eration to Fairfield's objections to Pio Costa's helistop license applica- <br />tion and the Board's resolution denying the use variance application. <br />Thus, the court found that DOT did not abuse its discretion. <br />In sum, the court concluded that there was sufficient credible evidence <br />in the record to support the DOT's decision to grant to Pio Costa a <br />helistop "special use" license. <br />See also: Garden State Farms, Inc. v. Bay, 77 N.J. 439, 390 A.2d <br />1177 (1978). <br />Case Note: <br />Fair field had also argued that the DOT should have conducted a contested case <br />hearing (i.e., a hearing on a licensing proceedings in which legal rights and <br />duties of specific parties are addressed). The court disagreed, noting that <br />Fairfield failed to cite to any statute or controlling decisions that require a <br />contested case hearing as a predicate when considering an application for a <br />helistop license. The court acknowledged that Fairfield's right to enact zoning <br />ordinances flowed from a state constitutional provision, N.J. Const. art. IV, § 6, <br />% 2, but said that provision did not grant a constitutional right to a hearing <br />under the circumstances of the case, since here Fairfield had no liberty or <br />property interest implicated by the helistop application. <br />Rezoning Developer seeks <br />rezoning of Targe parcel <br />Neighbors challenge rezoning, citing lack of <br />evidence of change in neighborhood character or <br />public need <br />Citation: Wrigley v. Harris, 2015 WL 1638088 (Miss. Ct. App. 2015) <br />MISSISSIPPI (04/14/15)—This case addressed the issue of whether <br />an applicant had proven sufficient evidence existed that the character of <br />© 2015 Thomson Reuters 9 <br />