Laserfiche WebLink
<br />May 10, 20091 Volume 31 No.9 <br /> <br />Zoning Bulletin <br /> <br />conclusion without holding a plenary hearing to explain or identify "the (l <br />alleged alternanves"-which it had not done. <br />Accordingly, the. court remanded the matter back to the trial court to <br />evaluate whether the township met its burden of proving: (1) that the <br />Bertinos' store would have secondary adverse effects on the surround- <br />ing community; and (2) the adequacy of available alternative sites for the <br />Bertinos' store "within the relevant marketing .area." <br /> <br />See also: Hamilton Amusement Center v. Verniero, 156 N.J. 254, 7)6 <br />A.2d 1137 (1998). <br /> <br />See also: Township of Saddle Brook v. A.B. Family Center, Inc., 156 N.J. <br />587, 722 A.2d530 (1999). <br /> <br />Case Note: In remanding the matter back to the trial court, the apw <br />pellate colli'! explained both: (1) the type of evidence necessary for <br />the township to meet its burden of showing that the Ordinance met <br />a substantial governmental interest (i.e., testimony from realtors on <br />property values, from civic associations as to harmful effects of such <br />businesses, and from law enforcement as to a link between certain <br />offenses and such businesses); and (2) the steps the trial court had <br />to take in determining the adequacy of available alternative sites for (\ <br />the Bertinos' store "within the relevant marketing area" (i.e. deter- \.) <br />mine: (a) the relevant market area; (b) the availability of suitable <br />sites within that market area; and (c) whether the number of suit~ <br />able sites in relation to the size of the market area, provided the Ber- <br />tinos with enough alternatives to withstand constitutional scrutiny). <br /> <br />Superseding Regulation-Project opponents argue <br />that enactment of ballot measure made earlier <br />waivers of land use regulations ineffective <br /> <br />Project proponent contends state's goal-post statute <br />prohibits changes to those waivers <br /> <br />Citation: Pete's Mountain Homeowners Ass'n V" Clackamus County, 227 <br />Or. App. 140, 204~P.3d 802 (2009) <br /> <br />OREGON (04/01/09)-Pete's Mountain Homeowners Association <br />(the "Association") owned a 69-acre .parcel of property. County zon- <br />ing regulations that went into effect after the A~sociation purchased the <br />property required a minimum lo.t size of 80 acres for lot divisions. Or~ (J <br />egon's Measure 37 (enacted by voters in 2004) permitted an owner of <br />property that was subject to land use restrictions that went into effect <br /> <br />6 <br /> <br />@ 2009 Thomson Reuters <br /> <br />76 <br />