Opinion ID: 1436557
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Commission failed to properly review utility issues.

Text: Under the ordinance, the Planning and Zoning Commission was required to review utility easements, extensions, and construction requirements at a public hearing. [3] At the public hearing some discussion of these subjects took place but no decisions concerning the location of utility easements or construction of utility extensions were made. Instead, the Commission found that Marlow will work with Carr-Gottstein with regard to extension of utilities and that the final location of the utility easement will be left to [Marlow] and [Carr-Gottstein]. We assume that this finding was intended by the Commission to be a command to Marlow to attempt to reach an agreement with Carr-Gottstein concerning utility extensions and the location of utility easements. While this is a reasonable approach, it does not comply with the ordinance's requirement of a review of utility easements and extensions. Utility easements and extensions cannot be reviewed unless there is a specific proposal concerning them. As there was none in this case, the approval of the Planning and Zoning Commission was premature under the rezoning ordinance. For the above reasons, the judgment of the superior court is REVERSED and this case is REMANDED to the superior court with instructions to vacate the Board's decision and the Planning and Zoning Commission's site plan approval and remand this case to the Planning and Zoning Commission for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. [4]