My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/02/2008
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
2008
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/02/2008
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 9:45:55 AM
Creation date
9/26/2008 2:54:23 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
10/02/2008
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
132
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />(-~) <br /> <br />.~- <br /> <br />September 10, 2008 I Volume 21 No. 17 <br /> <br />The court concluded that under the five-factor-test, the Ordinances <br />were clearly preempted by Megan's Law and were therefore invalid. <br /> <br />See also: Overlook Terrace Management Corp. v. Rent Control Bd. <br />of Town of West New York, 71 N.J. 451, 366 A.2d 321 (1976): <br /> <br />See also: Doe v. Poritz, 142 N.J. 1, 662 A.2d 367, 36 AL.R.5th <br />711 (1995). <br /> <br />Case Note: TJ:le court noted that more than '100 municipalities in <br />all twenty-one counties in New Jersey had recently adopted ordi- <br />nances similar' to those of Galloway Township and Cherry Hill <br />Township, which placed residency restrictions on CSOs. <br /> <br />Case Note: The Townships had argued that because the chal- <br />lenged ordinances were zoning ordinances, they were within the <br />zoning power of the municipality. The court said it would not <br />even address whether CSOs could be barred from living in des- <br />ignated areas under the zoning power. The court said that while <br />the chaUenged ordinances were labeled as zoning ordinances, <br />they were in actuality not zoning ordinances, but residency re- <br />striction ordinances. Moreover, the court said that calling a mu- <br />nicipal action "zoning" could not create municipal power to act <br />in a way otherwise prohibited by conflicting state legislation. <br /> <br />Conditional Development-County ordinance <br />limits clearing on property zoned ~ural to a <br />maximum. fifty percent <br /> <br />Landowners allege ordinance violates state law prohibiting a <br />"tax, fee, or charge" on development <br /> <br />Citation: Citizens' Alliance for Property Rights v. Sims, 187 P.3d 786 <br />(Wash. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008) <br /> <br />WASillNGTON (07/07/08)-Under Washington's Growth Man- <br />agement Act (GMA), local jurisdictions were required to adopt reg- <br />ulations to protect critical areas. In response to that mandate, the <br />county enacted its Clearing and Grading Critical Areas Ordinance. <br />A section of that ordinance, S 16.82.150 (the Ordinance), limited the <br />amount of land that could be cleared on a given parcel of property <br /> <br />@ 2008 Thomson ReuterslWest <br /> <br />5 <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />! <br /> <br />65 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.