Town of Sandgate v. Colehamer

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “§ 4472(d) clearly applies to defenses raised in enforcement proceedings and clearly applies to attacks on the validity of zoning provisions unless they raise constitutional issues.”
• holding that because defendant’s exclusive remedy lay in appeal, which he failed to do, he could not challenge the validity of the ordinance later in the enforcement action
• stating that defendant lacked standing to appeal because he “failed to show that he ha[d] any title at all” which would qualify defendant as an interested person under former § 4464(b)(1)
• zoning ordinance not unconstitutional, even though it applied to only one person at time of passage; ordinance was neutral on its face and its purposes were reasonably related to public interest
• “We have strictly enforced the exclusivity-of-remedy provision consistent with the evident legislative intent to require all zoning contests to go through the administrative review process in a timely fashion.”
• “[W]e must interpret a zoning statute in light of the whole statutory scheme.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).