My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/07/2010
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
2010
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/07/2010
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 10:02:53 AM
Creation date
12/30/2009 8:43:53 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
01/07/2010
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
81
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 />November 10,20091 Volume 31 No. 21 <br /> <br />Zoning Bulletin <br /> <br />"whose rights, status or other legal relations are affected" by the zoning <br />decision. Indeed, just as with private standing, they "must have some <br />property right or some personal right ahd a pecuniary,interest." <br />Here, Liberty owned no property and paid no taxes. Liberty did not <br />have private or public standing because it had no legal right-personal <br />or pecuniary-that had been "put in jeopardy by the Commissioner's <br />[rezone] decision." In other words, Liberty had not alleged any di- <br />rect harm and had not been denied any rights. Finding Liberty lacked <br />standing to bring its claim, the court concluded that its claim faiied. <br /> <br />See also: Common. Council of Michigan City v. Board of Zoning Ap- <br />peals of Michigan City, 881 N.E.2d 1012 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). <br /> <br />See also: State ex reI. Cittadine v. Indiana Dept. of Transp., 790 N.E.2d <br />978 (Ind. 2003). <br /> <br />See also: City of Hammond v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 152 Ind. App. <br />480, 284.N.E.2d 119 (1972). <br /> <br />Case Note: Liberty had not raised the issue of public standing in the <br />trial court. Thus, the court cQncluded, Liberty had waived the issue. <br />Waiver notwithstanding, the court addressed the issue in its decision. <br /> <br />Referendum Petitions-Residents file <br />referendum petitions to have rezoning <br />resolutions go before township electorate <br /> <br />Rezone applicants challenge petitions as invalid for failure to <br />accurately summarize conditions and overstating acreage <br /> <br />Citation: State ex reI. Miller Diversified Holdings v. Wood Cty. Bd. of <br />Elections, 2009-0hio-4980, 2009 WL 3151811 (Ohio 2009) <br /> <br />OHIO (09/28/09)-Miller Diversified Holdings, L.L.c., ("Miller") <br />and McCarthy Builders, Inc., ("McCarthy") had options to purchase cer- <br />tain parcels of real estate in the township. The parcels were known as: the <br />Wolf parcel, the DeChristopher parcel, and the Neiderhouse parcel. <br />Miller and McCarthy planned to develop single-family residential . <br />subdivisions on the three parcels. In furtherance of that plan, in 2007, <br />Miiler and McCarthy submitted to the township's Board of Trustees <br />(the "Board") applications to rezone the three parcels. <br />The Board adopted resolutions rezoning the parcels, subject to cer- <br />tain conditions. <br /> <br />8 <br /> <br />@ 2009 Thomson Reuters <br /> <br />36 <br /> <br />/~"- <br />. \' <br />i( Ji <br /> <br />(~').\ <br />. . <br /> <br />~)) <br /> <br />JI <br />II <br />I' <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.