As detailed above, the petition summary borrowed from language contained in the public-hearing notices and in a resolution of the zoning commission, not from any resolution or other legislative act of the township passing the zoning amendment at issue.” The petition summary in this case did not summarize a zoning resolution that was passed or approved by the township. “Donaldson ignores that it is the zoning amendment as adopted by the township that must be summarized in the petition,” the court wrote. The court called the argument “unpersuasive." Without this minimum information, a petition summary does not present the issue fairly and accurately to those being asked to sign the petition.”ĭonaldson, a township resident, had argued that the petition’s summary was sufficient as a matter of law because it was the same as the summary used by the township’s zoning commission on notices of public hearings and in other documents. The court continued: “At a minimum, the summary should have identified the location of the land being rezoned and explained the proposed zoning change. The average person reading the summary would not know where the planned overlay district is located or what property is included within it.” nowhere does the summary contain any information about where the planned overlay district is located. The court upheld the elections board’s view, stating, “. Planned Overlay District 18, approved by township trustees in March, created a roughly 190-acre zoning overlay for mixed-use development north of Hyatts Road, primarily between Sawmill Parkway and Liberty Road.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |