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 />October 10, 20091 Volume 31 No. 19 <br /> <br />Zoning Bulletin <br /> <br />maximum density requirement resulted in a requirement that lots have a () <br />3.33 acre minimum lot area. <br /> <br />See also: Graff v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 277 Conn. 645, 894 A.2d <br />285 (2006): . <br /> <br />See also: Jalowiec Realty Associates, L.P. v. Planning & Zoning Com- <br />mission, 278 Conn. 408, 898 A.2d 157 (2006). <br /> <br />Case Note: The court also gave "considerable weight" to the Com- <br />mission's interpretation of the density requirements because it found <br />the Commission "had "reasonably and consistently... interpreted <br />. S IV(A)(S) for many years." <br /> <br />Case Note: The court also found support for its conclusion in the <br />state statutory (Conn. Gen. Stat. S 8-18) definition of "subdivision," <br />"which directed "attention to the original tract of land from which <br />the initial diviSion. of the property was made." <br /> <br />Telecommunications Act-Zoning commission <br />denies application for permit to construct () <br />telecommunications tower <br /> <br />Applicant contends denial is insufficiently detailed to satisfy <br />Telecommunication Act's "in writing" requirement <br /> <br />Citation: Sprint Spectrum, L.P. v. Platte County, Missouri, 2009 WL <br />2392172 (C.A.S (Mo. 2009)) <br /> <br />-The 8th U.S. Circuit has ju'risdiction over Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, <br />Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota. <br /> <br />. MISSOURI (08/06/09)-Sprint Spectrum, L.P. ("Sprinf') provided <br />wireless telecommunications services to certain geographic markets, in- <br />cluding the county. Sprint sought to improve its. wireless cellular phone <br />coverage in the county. To do this, it sought to build a telecommunica- <br />tions tower on a 7.47-acre parcel of property (the "Property") owned <br />by a local church. The Property was zoned as agricultural district and <br />was adjacent to several residential subdivisions. The county's zoning <br />regulations (the "Regulations") allowed the construction of telecommu- <br />nications towers in agricultural districts if the applicant first obtained a <br />special use permit. Sprint applied to the county's planning and zoning <br />commission (the "Commission") for the required special use permit. i ) <br />d d h l, <br />The Commission vote to eny Sprint's application. T e Commis- <br />sion recorded its decision ~n a four-page document. In that document, <br /> <br />.6 <br /> <br />@ 2009 Thomson Reuters <br /> <br />88 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.