Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/02/2006

Home

Page 2 -- November 25, 2005 ~ ~ Moratorium-- County stops development until studies ~onducted Local developers fear moratoriam has no deadline Citation: Droste v. Board of County Commissioners of the County of ?itkin, Court of Appeals of Colorado, .Div. 5, No. 04CA0637 (2005) COLORADO (10/06105) --In 2003, the Board of Commissioners of Pitkin County passed an emergency ordinance creating a temporary moratorium on accept- ing, processing, and approving development applications concerning certain lands. Its stated reason for doing so was to bring the unincorporated parts of the county into compliance with the state's requirement of a master plan. Droste wanted to develop land in the area subject to the moratorium. How- ever, the board refused to accept any of his proposals. Droste sued, and the court ruled in favor of the board. Droste appealed, arguing that the moratorium was impermissibly open-ended and could become a permanent ban. DECISION: 3~armed, The moratorium was not open-ended. The stated purpose of the moratorium was to allow time to conduct a com- prehensive study of appropriate regulations in regard to the necessary master plan. The study would examine the appropriate density and development inten- sity in the moratorium area so that the board could enact appropriate zorfi~ng regulations to support the adopted plan. In fact, the moratorium duration waS the Board of County Comnussmn . stated to be "until formally terminated by. W251e the stated duration could be read as open-ended, it nevertheless was constrained by the moratorium's stated purpose, and its length measured by the time reasonably necessary to conduct the requisite studies and prepare the plans. If the tasks were not accomplished in a reasonable time, then the morato- rium could be challenged on the ~ound its duration was unreasonable. Until then, the court would not conclude that the moratorium was impermissibly open-ended- see also: Boone ~: Board of Co6 nty Commissioners, 107 P3d 11]4 (2004). see also: Archibold v. p~tblic Utilities Commission, 58 P. 3d 1031 (2002). Conditional Use Permit-- Company wants to put aggregate sales yard in residential area Neighbors fear its negative effects Citation: Vulcan Lands Inc. v. City of Olive Branch, Court of Appeals of Mississippi, No. 2003-CA-O i S14-COA (2005) MISSISSIPPI (10/0,1/05) -- Vulcan Lands Inc. applied for a conditional use permit to operate an aggregate sales yard on property that it owned in the city © 2005 Quinlan PuBlishing Group, Any reproduction ~s p[ohibtted, For more ,nformation ptease call (617) 542-00~.u. 116