My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/07/2003
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
2003
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/07/2003
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 9:31:35 AM
Creation date
8/4/2003 3:28:46 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
08/07/2003
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
201
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
Page 8 --July 10, 2003 <br /> <br />Z.B. <br /> <br />living room, and two bedrooms -- and an attached carpo~ called "the studio" <br />to tenants. Both units had separate entrances and separate locks, and the ten- <br />ants did not share living space, phone lines, food, or bathroom Cacilities with <br />each 6ther or Stewart. Prospective tenants had to undergo a credit check before <br />they were accepted, and tenants had to sign a residential lease a~eement. <br /> In 2000, the state of Montana sued Stew-mr for violating the zoning law by <br />using a single-family unit as a multiple-family unit. The court g-ranted the state <br />judgment without a trial. Stewart appealed, claiming a Missoula County City <br />Zoning Officer had approved the architectural plans for the home, from which <br />the home had never been structurally altered, and therefore, the home was still <br />in compliance with zoning restrictions. <br />DECISION: Affirmed. <br /> Stewart had violated the zoning restrictions. <br /> The Zomng Resolution defined a single-family home as "a detached build- <br />ing desi=o~ned for occupancy by one (1) fam/ly" and defined "family" as "one or <br />more persons ... living and cooking together as a single housekeeping unit." <br /> Stewart and her tenants were clearly not acting as a "single housekeeping <br />unit." They did not share any living space, food, or facilities. As for Stewart's <br />argument that the zoning o~cial had approved the architectural plans for the <br />house, it was her use of the structure, not the structure itself, that violated the <br />zoning regulations, so her ~gument was void. <br />Citation: Stare of Montana v. Stewart, Supreme Co,irt of Montana, No. 02-676 <br />(2003). <br /> <br />Now RENEW your subscription ONL~ at www. quinlan.c.om ] <br /> <br /> Zoning Bulletin <br />To order Zoning Bulletin, call (800)' 229-2084, or complete and return this <br />form to Quinlan Publishing Group, 23 Drydock Ave., Boston, MA 02210-2387, <br />or fax (800) 539-8839. <br /> $107 (plus $9.81 s&h) -- 1 year (24 issues) <br /> <br /> Q New subscription C:I Payment enclosed <br /> Q Renewal subscription Q Bill me ZBN8 <br /> <br />Name <br /> <br />Organization <br /> <br />Address <br /> <br />City State <br />Phone Fax <br />,~mail <br /> <br />Zip <br /> <br />100 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.