My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/04/2010
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
2010
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/04/2010
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 10:03:15 AM
Creation date
2/25/2010 3:31:34 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
03/04/2010
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
100
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 /> <br />. .... <br /> <br />.~~. <br /> <br />; . <br /> <br />}; <br /> <br />. " <br />.. ....... <br /> <br />~- .. <br /> <br />76 <br /> <br />. , <br /> <br />... ._~ ""_..,. _........__;:.-:- -n: . ..;: <br />.... .......;.-.". .... <br /> <br />. ,.-. <br /> <br />January25,2010 I Volume41 No.2. <br /> <br />Zoning Bulletin <br /> <br />no longer needs land platted' for public use in a PUD to carry out <br />iis governmental purposes"). Accordingly, the court conchldedthat <br />. '~the PUD Act's ill0dificati6n provision, IU24-61-106(3)(b), does <br />. riot apply to other' politi<:;al subdivisions so as to superseded their <br />override authority under (the Planning Act'sS130-28-110(1)(c)." <br /> <br />See also: Board 6f County Com't:s of Douglas' County,. Colo. v. Bain- <br />bridge, Inc.,' 929 P.2d. 691, 115 Ed. Law Rep. 123 (Co.lo.1996), as <br />modified on denial of reh'g, (Jan. 13, 1997). <br /> <br />.See also: Smith v. Zufelt, 880P.2d 1178 (Colo. 1994). <br /> <br />Case Note: The court noted that even though under. the Planning <br />A<::t another public entity (i.e., political subdivision such .as a fire <br />. district) may affirmatively overrule a county's decision on location <br />and extent review for a proposed project, that review is requited <br />arid beneficial because: (1) the residents of the county are entitled <br />to an opportunity to present their objections and views to be con,. <br />sidered by the planning commission; and (2) if the political sub- <br />division decides to proceed with construction, it must make that' <br />decision in the face of the county's objection. <br /> <br />i~#~~~~~~~~yl~li.~;~!t~~~t~~~~~~ <br /> <br />12 <br /> <br />@) 2010 Thomson Reuters <br /> <br />.;' <br /> <br />, ~ .... <br /> <br />.~ <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />.-.r <br /> <br />, > <br /> <br />'.. <br /> <br />p'J <br /> <br />"-. <br /> <br />c....'.. <br />, <br /> <br />() <br /> <br />. '--C;'_c~._-,~. <br /> <br />.7.,~~ <br /> <br />'~3. .... <br />. <br /> <br />,0 <br /> <br />.... .'. <br /> <br />, . <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.