08-28-1978 Planning Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

i i ( • • Pile 6»Amutt 1^78 However, the diuniual of the inverse condemnation cause of action was improper. The Atiiu alleged both significant precondemnation activities and the iack of any reasonably ^eficial use. Since these allegations, if proved true, would entitle the Agins to relief, the Agins have alleged sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action. Therefore, the dismissal of the inverse condemnation action is reversed. N.J.Uaaaally • VIolatton of Ordlnanee Township of Washington v. Central Bergen Community Mental Health Center, Inc. 383 Atlantic 2d 1194 Township sought to have the Health Center foreclosed from using a local residence as a transitional residence for former patients. The township brought a declar atory judgment action claiming that the transi tional residence violated a soning ordinance. The Health Center countered by contending that (I) as a state agency they were immune from complying with the local xoning ordinance, (2) the zoning ordinance was invalid, and (3) the transitional residence was in com pliance with the zoning ordinance. DECISION: The Health Center does not constitute a state agency since it is a private non-profit organization and therefore was not immune from complying with the ordinance. Secondly, the zoning ordirumce wu valid. The ordinance does not conflict with state law by failing to designate transitional facilities as a permitted use. Also, the definition of family as specified by the ordinance is valid since it is within the guidelines set by the state supreme court. Berger v. State. 71 N.J. 225, 364 A. 2d 993. Finally, since the transitional residence is a single housekeeping unit as defined by the ordinance, it does not violate the ordinance. Therefore, judgment is for the Mental Health Center. III.InJnactlon • BaUdlag Permit City of ChiUcothe v. Stoecker 374 N.E. 2d 239 The city sought to enjoin the Stoeckers* from constructing a residence without acquiring the neemsary building permit. The court denied the city's request for a permanent injunction. The city appealed. DECISION: Unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the ordinance has no substantial relationship to the public's health, safety, or welfare, the ordinance is presumed valid. Since the Stoeckers have not complied with the zoning ordinance and there is no evidence to show that the ordinance is invalid, the city should be granted its request. Iherefore the case is reversed. Cal.Nolke • Qaaai'Legiilatlvc Action Horn V. County of Ventura 144 Cal. Rptr. 818 Horn attempted to have the county's decision, which permitted the division of a lot adjacent to his land, set aside. He argued that the county, buy not holding a public hearing and giving notice to affected landowners, has denied them due process of the law. He claimed that the division of the neighboring lot damaged the environment and his lot andlillhmgUtoBiMCd hg inncalcd,— /0^ o o o o o o Aulust 1978 - Paie 7| DECISION: Since the action taken by the county was quasi-legislative rather than quasi-judicial, notice to the adjacent landowners was notl required. The county was implementing the zoning ordinance which con' stitutes a quasi-legislative act. Even though the landowners had a right tol be heard on the environmental impaa report before the supervisors, they| were not entitled to notice. Therefore, the dismissal of the claim wi proper. Filing For Proceeding Is Crucial Appeal of Gilbert 383 Atlantic 2d 356 Zoning Officer of Hanover Township approved Hanover Assodati building permit application on April 13, 1973. On May 8, 1973 iwi actions were filed in the Common Pleas Court by residents of thi Township seeking to revoke the building permit. A request for a hearini before the Zoning Board was not filed until August 29, 1973. Regula< tions for appealing zoning decisions are: "No person shall be allowed u file any proceeding with the board later than thirty days after any ap plication for development, preliminary or final, has been approved by appropriate municipal officer, agency or body is such proceeding it designed to secure reversal or to limit the approval in any manner..." The Common Pleas Court ruled against the appellant and appeal w< made to the Commonwealth Court of Petuuylvania. DECISION: Affirmed. The court said that the actions filed on May 8, 1973 establish the fact that appellant knew of the issuance of the buUdini permit, and therefore, the zoning board need not hear the appeal shu the appellant tailed co file within 30 days of May 8. O.CCourt Won't Review "Rulcmaklag" DedsioM Schneider v. District of Columbia Zoning Commission 383 Atlantic 2d 324 Property owners petitioned for review of an order of the defendanj (D.C. Zoning Commission) which rezoned 30 lots. Plaintiff claimed thaj the Commission erred in conducting its administrative proceedings "rulemaking" proceedings as distinguished from "contested-case" prol ceedings. The importance of the distinction Is that the court it withouj jurisdiction to review a rulemaking decision made by a zoning commisj sion. DECISION: The District of Columbia Court of Appeab dismissed thi petition on the basis that the decision was a rulemaking decision. It applying Chey Chase Citizeiu Association v. District of Columbia COun ol, 327 A. 2d 314, the court said that an administrative proceeding is nr subject to "contested<asc" procedural requirements if it it acting in legislative capacity, making policy decisions directed towards the gc public. Since this was not a case involving specific rights of sped He__ ties, but was one involving the broad-bas^ usue of the-appropriaii ■future of an area of the District of Columbia, the Zoning Commissiol according to the court, was acting in a legislative capacity, therebj precluding judicial scrutiny. -if rstT'