My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/03/2009
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
2009
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/03/2009
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 10:01:23 AM
Creation date
11/30/2009 9:32:33 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
12/03/2009
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
138
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 />September 25, 2009 I Volume 3 I No. 18 <br /> <br />Zoning Bulletin <br /> <br />terest of the owner of the property affected, and not related to the () <br />general plan for the community as a whole." "In other words, a zon- <br />ing amendment which favors a particular landowner over adjacent <br />landowners will be viewed as an arbitrary and discriminatory use of <br />zoning authority unless there is 'substantial evidence of change in the <br />neighborhood in order to justify the rezoning ....'" <br />Here, the court found that the amendments: allowed the Inn to <br />"conduct highly commercial operations within an area restricted to <br />one-and two-family dwellings;" and effectively exempted the Inn <br />from having to apply for a use permit to operate a restaurant. The <br />amendments "significantly altered and expanded the activities previ- <br />ously allowed" in the residential zone, and "effectively rezoned" the <br />Inn from residential to commercial. Significantly, the only business af- <br />fected by the amendments was the Inn. Since there was no change <br />in the neighborhood that justified the rezone, such preferential treat- <br />m~nt,said the court, constituted impermissiblespot zoning. <br /> <br />See also: Drews v. City of Hattiesburg, 904 So:2d 138 (Miss. 2005). <br /> <br />Case Note: In its decision, the court rejected the city's argument <br />that the amendments were only "text amendments" and not a <br />rezoning. The court admonished that the "labeling of an action <br />as a 'text amendment' does not make it so if the [c]ity's actions <br />effectively rezone a residential plot for a commercial use." <br /> <br />Preemption-Township brings condemnation <br />action for development rights at private airport <br />. and ownership of surrounding property <br /> <br />.', <br /> <br />Landowner argues township's authority to condemn the <br />property is preempted by federal and state law <br /> <br />Citation: Township of Reading ton v. Solberg Aviation Co., 2009 WL <br />2513665 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2009) <br /> <br />NEW JERSEY (08/19/09)-Solberg Aviation Co. ("Solberg") <br />owned approximately.726 acres of land in the township (the "Prop- <br />erty"). The Property contained a small airport, with airport facili- <br />ties occupying between seventy and 102 acres. The remainder of the <br />Property contained farmland, open fields, woodlands, wetlands and <br />stream corridors. <br /> <br />4 <br /> <br />@ 2009 Thomson Reuters <br /> <br />74 <br /> <br />/~ <br />( ) <br />./ <br /> <br />( ) <br />'-.~... <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />i <br />, <br />! <br />, <br />I <br />! <br />! <br />i <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />! <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.