Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/07/2007

Home

Zoning Bulletin lent of a physical invasion by the government of the property in ques- tion" and was a constitutional violation. However, the appeals court found that the regulation that created the unbuildable zone around the airport was a direct result of actions by the state legislature-and not any of the defendants named in the claim. The defendants were powerless to rezone the property; doing so-or grant- ing relief to Cousino for not doing so-would run contrary to state law. In addition, the court noted that even if Cousino's claim that the defendants had violated his constitutional rights had merit, that claim would not yet be ripe for review. The township had not made a final decision on Cousino's application; the application had been tabled. Un~ til final administrative review had occurred, a party could not challenge the decision of a zoning agency in court. See also: K & K Canst., Inc. v. Departm.ent of Environmental Quality, 267 Mich. App. 523, 705 N. W2d 365 (2005), appeal denied, 475 Mich. 856,713 N.W2d 268 (2006) and petition for cert. filed, 75 V.S.L.W 3409 (V.S. Jan. 29, 2007). Appeal-Property owner pursues challenge of code after settlement reached over neighbor1s deck Argues two sections of code limit due process impermissibly Citation: Patton v. City of Newport, 2007 WL 779150 (Ky. Ct. App. 2007) KENTUCKY (03/16107)-Patton's neighbor was given permission by the cir-j of Newport to construct a deck. Patton :filed a lawsuit seeking to stop the construction, arguing that the deck violated the side yard setback requirement. In addition to seeking an order that would stop the deck from being built, Patton argued that two sections of the city's zoning code did not comply with state law as they were applied in this case. Thus, Patton argued, those sections were unenforceable. The first section in question had to do with the process available for parties to file complaints in opposition to zoning decisions. The rel- evant section of the code stated that: ""Whenever a violation of this Or- dinance occur[red], or [was] alleged to have occurred, any person may file a written complaint...with the Zoning Administrator. The Zoning Administrator [should] record properly such complaint, immediately in- vestigate, and take action thereon as provided by this Ordinance and the State Statutes." Patton noted that this section in and of itself did not violate state law, but it was impermissibly vague because it omitted a requirement that the board had to deny any variance request that arose from "circumstances that [were] the result of willful violations of the zoning regulation by the applicant." The second point of contention for Patton was a section 6 170