My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/05/2009
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
2009
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/05/2009
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 9:59:55 AM
Creation date
2/27/2009 11:57:36 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
03/05/2009
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
134
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 />Zoning Bulletin <br /> <br />The court also concluded that the "duty to monitor occupancy" re- <br />quirement placed on landlords by the Ordinance was not a violation <br />of tenants' privacy rights. Inquiries by a diligent landlord in order to <br />comply with the Ordinance would not risk interference of tenants' pos- <br />sessory interest in the property or intrude upon tenants' physical soli- <br />tude or seclusion. Rather a landlord could obtain information about <br />occupancy without entering the property such as by monitoring: the <br />number of rental unit applicants; the form of rent (i.e., in cash; lump <br />sum; fractions of one-fourth or less); from whom rent was received; the <br />number of names on the rental unit mailbox; the number of cars regu- <br />larly parked on the premises; and occupancy affidavits. <br /> <br />See also: Benjamin v. City of West Lafayette, 701 N.E.2d 1268 (Ind. <br />Ct. App. 1998). <br /> <br />See also: Johnson v. Scandia Ass'ociates, Inc., 717 N.E.2d 24 (Ind. . <br />. 1999). <br /> <br />Case Note: In its decision, the court emphasized that the Ordi- <br />nance was "poorly written" and "in places, highly ambiguous." <br /> <br />Referendum Requirements-Ballot measure <br />committee petitions for referendums on town- <br />adopted resolution and ordinance <br /> <br />Elector challenges petitions as failing to provide descriptions <br />required by state law . <br /> <br />Citation: Sklar v. Town of Fountain Hills, 2008 WL 4982449 (Ariz. <br />Ct. App. Div. J 2008), review denied, (Dec. 4, 2008) <br /> <br />ARIZONA (11/25/08)-In March 2007, the Fountain Hills Invest- <br />ment Company, LLC ("FIDC") purchased property (the "Property") in <br />the town. FIDC eventually filed an application with the town to amend <br />the town's General Plan and to rezone the Property. On May 15, 2008, <br />at a public hearing, the town council approved Resolution No. 2008- <br />25 (the "Resolution"), which amended the town's general plan, and <br />Ordinance No. 08-12 (the "Ordinance") (collectively, the "Measures"), <br />which rezoned the Property. <br />Subsequently, "Save Our Small Town" ("SOST"), a ballot measure <br />committee, submitted to the town clerk petitions for ballot referen- <br />dums on the Resolution and the Ordinance. <br /> <br />4 <br /> <br />Zoning Bulletin @ 2009 Thomson Reuters <br /> <br />70 <br /> <br />\ <br />I <br />I <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.