An interesting “development” – so to speak – took place recently as to a quasi-judicial board’s obligations with regard to special and conditional use permits. The case is PHG Asheville, LLC v. City of Asheville, No. COA18-251 (November 6, 2018). A developer proposed to build an eight-story, 178,412 […]
In Bizzarro v. County of Ashe, after a quasi-judicial land use proceeding, the County’s Planning Board approved Horvath Communications, Inc.’s application for a permit pursuant to “the Ashe County Telecommunications Tower Ordinance” to construct a telecommunications tower on a parcel of property neighboring a parcel of property owned by Mr. and Mrs. Bizzarro.
Nationally, we are noticing a slight “uptick” in published case law addressing claims that public officials are “biased”, maintain a “conflict of interest”, or are otherwise unable to perform constitutionally their duties as to land use decisions.
If you know the term “ruckus” – generally anything loud, confusing and conflicted — it’s often a dead-on description of a contested QJZ proceeding. Every QJZ proceeding begins with a person filing an application requesting a QJZ decision. The applicant starts the ruckus.
Sometimes, the simplest, local example teaches the deepest, global lesson – politics and impartiality do not mix. Under the blanketing fog of politics and internet delivered news, it’s easy to become confused and actually believe you can thread the needle of politics and impartiality, but it can’t be […]