Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/02/2006

Home

February 10, 2006-- Page 5 mit the application first to a county planning board as required by local law. Lamer sued. The court ruled that while the board's decision should be annulled for failure to follow necessary procedures, Lamer had no right to continue erecting the sign. Lamer appealed, arguing it should be allowed to continue to erect its sign. DECISION: At,armed. The relevant law mquked a village to refer to its county planning agency regarding certain proposed actions, including the ~anting of area variances near right-of-ways. Failure to comply was not a mere procedural irregularity, but rather a fatal defect. Therefore, the denial of the area variance was properly annulled, meaning Lamer had no fight to continue erection of the sign pending remand to the board. see also: Lamar Advertising of Penn, LLC v. Pitman, 9 A.D.3d 734 (2004). see also: Eastport Alliance v. Lofaro, 13 A.D.3d 527 (2004). Appeal-- Commission rules proposal doesn't count as 'school' Applicant claims evidence proves proposal is school Citation: Boldman v. Taney County Commission, Court of Appeals of Missouri, Southern Dist., Div. J, No. 26677 (2005) MISSOURI (1~15/05) -- Boldman lived in a rural residential neighborhood. He wanted to use a portion of h/s property to offer a "private boarding school, for boys. Boldman applied to the Taney County Commission for the necessary ap- provals. After a hearing, the commission voted to deny Boldman's application. It found that the proposal did not fit the classification of a school. Boldman sued, and the court ruled in the commission's favor. Boldman appealed, arguing his proposed use of the property was a school. Under the zoning code, schools were permissible uses in rural residential neigh- borhoods. DECISION: Affirmed. The commission was entitled to decide whether the proposed use was a school or not. If the evidence before an administrative body could be viewed in either of two ways, the court was bound by the administrative decision. During the commission's meeting, there was a discussion as to whether Boldman's proposed use of the property constituted a school. There were to be no more than 10 young men attending the "camp" at any one time and Boldman, along with his wife, and two residential, paid interns, were to staff the camp. The young men were to bunk in "tent-like" structures. Although Boldman tes- tified that the participants would receive tfigh school diplomas or equivalen- cies, he also admitted that the camp was not a'state-approved school. © 2006 Quintan Pul~lis~ing Group. Any reprocluction is proi'~ibiteO. For more information please call (817) 542-0048. 143