My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/02/2009
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
2009
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/02/2009
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 10:00:01 AM
Creation date
3/27/2009 1:38:41 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
04/02/2009
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
170
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 />March 10,20091 Volume 31 No.5 <br /> <br />Zoning Bulletin <br /> <br />See also: Seviet Power Co., LLC v. Board of Sevier County Com'rs, <br />2008 VT 72, 196 P.3d 583 (Vtah 2008). <br /> <br />See also: Mouty v. The Sandy City Recorder, 2005 UT 41, 122 P.3d <br />521 (Utah 2005). <br /> <br />Case Note: In its decision as to referability, the court also noted <br />that when adoption of an ordinance was labeled "administrative," <br />citizens would have a right to challenge that label and prove that <br />the action was legislative. If the adoption 'of an ordinance was <br />"unlabeled," then a court must apply the test set forth in Citizen's <br />Awareness Now v. Marakis, 873.P.2d 1117 (Utah 1994). <br /> <br />Case Note: The court also addressed the is~ue of whether the no- <br />tice provided by the county for the April 2, 2007 public hearing <br />was sufficient. BRAVE had argued that the notice was insufficient <br />because: (1) the county posted a newly revised version of the de- <br />velopment agreement on the county's website less than one full <br />business day before the hearing; and (2) the county's posted and <br />published notices as to changes to be discussed in the meeting <br />lacked specincity. The court held that the county provided suf- <br />ficient notice for the public hearing. The court said that neither <br />state law nor the county zoning ordinance governing notice re- <br />quired that the latest draft of a development agreement be made <br />available to the public within a given time frame. Nor did state <br />law or the county zoning ordinance require that notice include a <br />specific listing of all proposed changes to existing ordinances to <br />be discussed. <br /> <br />Ordinance Interpretation-Ordinance allows <br />county board of supervisors to issue special <br />permit for condominium-type ownership <br /> <br />After board issues special permit, BZA says condominium <br />construction is prohibited by ordinance <br /> <br />Citation: Northampton County Rd. of Zoning Appeals v. Eastern. <br />Shore Development Corp., 277 Va. 198, 671 S.E.2d 160 (2009) <br /> <br />VIRGINIA (01/16109)~In 2003, Eastern Shore Development Cor-. <br />poration ("ESDC") asked the county to rezone a part of land it had <br />contracted to purchase. It asked for a rezone from "Al" (Agricultur- <br />all) zoning district to "CD-Rl" (Community Development - Single- <br /> <br />10 <br /> <br />@ 2009 Thomson Reuters <br /> <br />112 <br /> <br />.~ <br />\ <br />! <br /> <br />\ <br />I <br /> <br />j <br />/ <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.