Previous Story
IN ANAKS’ BID TO BLOCK AK PLAN
‘Zoning Board’s decision remains reviewable’
|
Posted on May 08 2023
The CNMI Supreme Court has denied Atkins Kroll’s request for reconsideration of its previous order setting aside the Superior Court’s decision to dismiss the Anaks Ocean View Hill Homeowners Association’s petition against the Zoning permit issued to Atkins Kroll for a Toyota/Lexus dealership and vehicle repair facility in Puerto Rico.
The Supreme Court issued an order over the weekend denying Atkins Kroll’s petition for rehearing and motion for reconsideration of the court’s March 7, 2023 order. In the order, the court found that the Superior Court had jurisdiction to hear Anaks’ petition.
The Supreme Court upheld the Superior Court’s jurisdiction to review the permit issued by the Zoning Board.
According to the court order, on Jan. 4, 2022, Atkins Kroll applied for a permit with the Zoning Board to build its dealership and vehicle repair facility next to the Anaks condominium complex in Puerto Rico.
On March 18, 2022, the Zoning Board approved Atkins Kroll’s application and issued the permit on April 13, 2022.
Anaks then filed a petition to challenge the permit in the Superior Court, but the Superior Court dismissed the petition, saying it was untimely filed.
On appeal, the CNMI Supreme Court held that Anaks’ petition was timely filed and set aside the dismissal. The high court also ruled that the Superior Court had jurisdiction to review the permit issued by the Zoning Board to Atkins Kroll.
Following the local Supreme Court’s decision, Anaks renewed its request for the trial court to review the Zoning Board’s decision. But, according to Atkins Kroll, the Superior Court lacks jurisdiction over the homeowners’ petition.
Atkins Kroll argued that the court erred by determining that the Zoning Board issued the conditional use permit to Atkins Kroll on April 13, 2022; overlooked or misapprehended Anaks’ challenge to the Zoning Board’s oral vote on March 18, 2022; did not consider the applicability of the Open Government Meetings and Records Act; infringed on the Legislature’s power to set the appeal period; and should grant a rehearing to avoid manifest injustice.
Despite this argument, the Supreme Court denied Atkins Kroll’s motion.
