I have just learned that the expected decision from Judge Fansler has been handed down, relating to the court challenge by the developer of the Stockton property. Based on a review of the record the judge has decided that Council had inadequate justification to overturn the MPC approval of the concept plan.

Because the judge ruled on the merits of the appeal, as found in the record no decision was entered on the issue of constitutionality of an appeal to council on a non-zoning issue.

The decision, in essence reinstates the MPC approval of the concept plan as submitted by the developer for the land off Stockton.

This decision relates to the Council action in March, 2004, and does not consider the subsequent action by Council in October of 2004.

West Hills was permitted to argue for support of Council's action, but the city was the object of the law suit. As such, I do not know if we would eligible to file an appeal of this decision, since we were not the primary parties in the suit. If an appeal were to be filed, it would have to be done by July 26th.

This action has been lengthy, and costly to the community, and my conversations with our attorney do not encourage me to think that an appeal would lead to a different decision. I will have follow-up talks with our attorney on Monday, and determine whether any other options are available.

---

 

 

I have just heard from our attorney that Chancellor Fansler has upheld our position, and has denied the request for a Summary judgment filed by the attorney representing Dave Reynolds, who is interested in developing the land on Stockton.

This is of course, good news, but every coin has two sides. The judge has set a date now for a full blown hearing at the end of March. The fact that we prevailed in the Summary hearing, because the plaintiffs had not borne the burden of proof that our appeal was unconstitutional, is no guarantee that in a full hearing we would again prevail. Also the expense issue can become significant. I have asked Bill Nulton, who lives adjacent to the proposed development to consider what could be an acceptable compromise position. Similarly, I have asked our attorney to talk to the plaintiff's attorney about the possibility of a compromise position. In light of this ruling the developer should also be more open to compromise, since there is no guarantee that he will prevail at the full hearing, and a compromise could save him $10,000 or more to pursue this further in the courts.

I will keep everyone informed as issues develop.

Joe