Schadlick v. Concord

The plaintiffs contend first that the ordinance is invalid because after notice of the public hearing was published, the description of the area rezoned was changed without further publication.

The ordinance as originally submitted described the area as follows: “Beginning at a point in the center of Ormond Street approximately 230 feet northerly of the intersection of Ormond Street with Prescott Street, which point is also on the boundary line of a general residence area as it now exists; thence northerly by the center line of Ormond Street and a straight line extension thereof, to Sugar Ball…