Nash v. Warren Zoning Board of Adjustment

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding that a voice vote taken at the close of a hearing by a municipal panel approving a permit application was not a final decision, while a subsequent written decision denying the application was
• allowing a municipal zoning panel to reopen a proceeding sua sponte (but within the thirty-day appeal period), to hold a newly-warned hearing to receive new evidence, and to issue a new decision
• rejecting superior court’s holding that Board’s vote at public hearing was a final decision which could not be reopened because of the passage of time; the vote did not qualify as a final decision as it did not include the written findings of fact contemplated by § 4470(a)
• inappropriate to use deemed-approval remedy where landowner’s claim is that the “board had inadequate grounds to reopen the proceedings”
• general procedural requirements of zoning appeals apply to conditional use cases although the authority for conditional uses is in a separate statute
• general procedural requirements of zoning appeals apply to conditional use cases although the authority for conditional uses is in separate statute

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).