Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Zoning Bulletin <br /> <br />and the type of animal in::inimal feeding operations. The state Depart-' .l=- <br />ment of Health was given the authority to adopt environmental regula- .Ii <br />tions for animal feeding operations. The cburt explained that the valid <br />statute repealed the earlier ordinance to the extent that the ordinance <br />conflicted with the statute. Thus, Amendment #2 was invalid to the ex- <br />tent that it regulated more than what the state law authorized. Since a <br />clause in Amendment #2 provided that any invaijd portion of it would <br />not affect the validity of the remaining portion, the court remanded the <br />case to the. district court to determine whether portions Amendment #2 <br />were still valid. . . <br /> <br />See also: Homer Tp. v. Zimney; 490 N. W:2d 256 (N.D. 1992). <br />See also: State ex ref.. City of Minot v. Gronna, 79 N.D. 673, 59 N. W:2d <br />514 (1953). <br /> <br />Case Note: The court clarified and explained why it looked at. the <br />2007 amendme'ut to N.D.C.e. ch. 11-33, rather than at the 2006 <br />version of the statute' that was in effect when the lawsuit com- <br />menced. The court said that, generally, in an enforcement action, the <br />court looked at the validity of th~ ordinance at the tinie the legal ac- <br />tion commenced: However, since the action before the court was a 1(=-") <br />declaratory judgment ,action to determine if the County's ordinance / <br />was currently: valid, tile court said it had to look at the current law. <br /> <br />Due Process-Township announces instructions <br />that affect development in PUD <br /> <br />Developer argu~s instructions amended PUD Plan, violating <br />its due process, and were unconstitutionally vague <br /> <br />Citation: Wedgewood Ltd. Partnership I v. Township of Liberty, Ohio, <br />2008- WL 4346795 (S.D. Ohio 2008) <br /> <br />OHIO (09/25/08)-Wedgewood Ltd. Partnership I (WLP) owned a <br />34-acre lot in the "Wedgewood Commerce Center" development (the <br />"WCC") in the township. The WCC was a 345-acremixed-use, planned- <br />. Unit development (PUD). Development in the PUD was governed bya <br />PUD Plan: <br />WLP sought to' construct a Wal-Mart Supercenter on a lot in the <br />WCe.. It submitted to the township's zoning commission (the "Co~s- <br />sion") an application for six area variances, which the Commission de- <br />nied. WLP subsequently withdrew the variance applications. <br /> <br />. -" <br /> <br />.(~) <br /> <br />8 <br /> <br />@ 2008 Thomson Reuters/West <br /> <br />70 <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />