My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/06/2010
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
2010
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/06/2010
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 10:03:37 AM
Creation date
4/30/2010 11:53:23 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
05/06/2010
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
95
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 />Zoning Bulletin March 10, 2010 ~ Volume 4 ~ No. 5 <br />The court agreed with the CEO that, for each of the two apartments <br />in the Seretakis' house: "the lessees were living as a `household' in a <br />`dwelling unit' because they not only shared the same kitchen and bath- <br />room facilities, they were also collectively responsible for fulfilling the <br />lease." The leases established that each tenant was "responsible to the <br />[Seretakis] for the rent for the whole apartment and most utilities, not <br />just for his or her pro rata share."Thus, "[l]ike all households then, if <br />one member [failed to] do his or her share, the others suffer[ed]." For <br />this reason, this was not a "boarding house" because "in the case of a <br />Boarding House the rent is for individual rooms, not for the entire prem- <br />ises, with each tenant being responsible fot the rent of their own room <br />~, <br />o y. <br />1n reaching this conclusion, the court rejected the Neighbors' argu- <br />ment that a group of unrelated students could not constitute a house- <br />hold unit. The Ordinance's definition of "household" was not, noted <br />the court, "restricted by relationship; but rather by living azrangement." <br />Students were "not per se excluded form the categoiy of persons who <br />[could] form household units." Also, the court yyas "reluctant to adopt a <br />definition of `household unit' that would require code enforcement offi- <br />cers to investigate the nature of the personal relationships that may exist <br />among the residents of a dwelling unit."' <br />~~ See also: Peregrine Developers, LLC a Town of Orono, 2004 ME 95, <br />854 A.2d 216 (Me. 2004). <br />Case Note: The court noted that its decision "in no way restricts <br />the [town]'s prerogative to regulate occupancy based on current or <br />future density requirements, fue and safety codes, or other munici- <br />pal regulations, affecting the number of residents who may occupy a <br />residential building." <br />Zoning News from Around the Nation <br />CALIFORNIA <br />The California Air Pollution Control Officers Association ("CAP- <br />COA") recently published a guide to "help local governtnents as they <br />move towazd Greenhouse Gas considerations in general plans and cli- <br />mate action plans." Among other things, the guide, entitled "Model <br />Policies for Greenhouse Gases in General Plans," provides "[m]odel lan- <br />guage is provided in nine major categories: GHG Reduction Planning <br />(overall); Land Use and Urban Design; Transportation; Energy Efficien- <br />t j cy; Alternative Energy; Municipal Operations; Waste Reduction and Di- <br />_-./ version; Conservation and Open Space; and Education." <br />Source: Law of the Land blog; h ://[awo ftheland wordpress coin/ <br />©2010 Thomson Reuters <br />11 <br />37 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.