Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/04/2006

Home

Page 6 -- March 25, 2006 nearest street intersection." There was no specific language that said the street could not be a dead end. Despite the clarity of the language, the commission felt that further inter- pretation was necessary. The commission believed that the intention of the regulation was to measure cul de sacs in relation to through streets exclu- sively, but the court found that this interpretation was groundless. The com- mission could not deny Pappas' application since it complied with the town's requirements. The plain language rule applied in this case: "The meaning of a statute shall, in the fa-st instance, be ascertained from the text of the statute itself and its relationship to other statutes. If after examining such text and considering such relationship, the meaning of such text is plain and unambiguous and does not use absUrd or unworkable reshlts, extra textual evidence of the meaning of the statute shall not be considered." If the commission thought that the regulation was problematic, the solution was to amend the regulation -- by changing "street" to "through streef' -- but, until that was done, Pappas' application could not be denied. see also: Schwartz. v. Planning and Zoning Commission, 543 A.2d 1339 (1988). see also: Smith v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Greenwich, 629 A.2d 1089 (1933). -Enforcement-- Zoning action takes several years Used car lot owner claims time for enforcement has passed Citation: Perry v. Parish of Jefferson, Court of Appeal of Louisiana, 5th Circuit, No. 05-CA-570 (2006) LOUISIANA (01/31/06) -- In July 1995, Perry opened a used car lot. On May 6, 1998, Peru was cited for violating the zoning code by not having an impervious surface on his lot. After several postponements, a hearing was finally held on June 20, 2000. Ultimately, Peru was ordered to correct the violation. .Perry sued, and the court ruled in favor of the parish. Perry appealed, arguing that the action against him was prescribed by state law. Under state law, all actions brought by the parish to require compliance with any zoning restriction or regulation had to be brought within three years of receipt of written notice o.f the alleged infraction. Peru claimed that any written notice he may have received was too late. DECISION: Affirmed. Even though there was no evidence to show when the parish was notified in writing of the infraction at issue, there was nothing to support Peru's argument. The parish asserted that the notification occurred immediately prior to ser- vice of the citation on May 6, 1998. However, even if such notice was given in ~ 2006 Qumlan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (817) 5424048. 5O