Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/07/2007

Home

May 1, 20071 Volume 1 1 No.9 3) was "arbitrary, oppressive or unreasonable and represented its will and not its judgment"; and 4) was supported by enough evidence to show that it was a reasonable conclusion. The rule that Jaros challenged stated that: "A petition that [sought] the same or substantially the same relief as a previously filed petition or that [sought] to reopen a previously filed petition to rehear or reconsider an appeal [would] not be heard by the Board." Jaros argued thatthis vi- olated his due process and equal protection rights. He also argued that, even if the law barring repetitive appeals was valid, his appeal should have been heard because it was not "the same or substantially the same relief" requested in his original appeal. The board was not convinced. The new deck was the same shape as the original, in the same location, and had steps in the same location; the only difference was that the new deck extended along the house for an additional five feet. Because the decks in the two proposals were so similar, the court found that the board had not erred in its determina- tion that Jaros had requested "substantially the same relief" in both appeals. With regard to the due process argument, the court found no viola- tion. Jaros argued that he did not have ample opportunity to discuss the issue of which way the stairs should face, but he could have appealed the board's decision that made the location of the stairs a condition of permit approval. On appeal, he would have had more time to argue his case, but he chose not to appeal. Because there was no error of law and evidence to support its conclu- sions, the court affirmed the board's decision. See also: Tateoka v. City of Waukesha Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 220 Wis. 2d 656, 583 N. W.2d 871 (Ct. App. 1998). Zoning Decision-Objector claims letter affirming validity of development is an appealable decision Developer seeks to stop board from hearing appeal Citation: Hodges v. Gulf Highlands Development, L.L.c., 2007 WL 1030309 (Ala. Civ. App. 2007) ALABAMA (04/06/07)-Gulf Highlands Development, LLC, had an approved planned residential development in Baldwin county. It sub- mitted an application to the county commission to modify the plan. Specifically, the modification 'requested an exchange of land between Gulf Highlands and a planned residential development of another developer. After a hearing in November 2003, the request was approved and the planned residential development was amended. The record from the 5 181