My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/04/2010
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
2010
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/04/2010
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 10:04:23 AM
Creation date
10/29/2010 1:40:28 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
11/04/2010
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
136
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
September 25, 2010 I Volume 41 No. 18 Zoning Bulletin <br />its adoption of the Ordinance. Finding the city had failed to do so, the <br />court affirmed the conclusion that the Ordinance was unenforceable. <br />See also: Honn v. City of Coon Rapids, 313 N. W.2d 409 (Minn. 1981). <br />See also: Arcadia Development Corp. v. City of Bloomington, 552 <br />N.W..2d 281 (Minn. Ct. App. 1996). <br />Case Note: The city had argued that the rule that should be ap- <br />plied was that: "legislative bodies generally are not required to <br />articulate reasons for enacting a statute or ordinance"; and that <br />"[t]he rational basis test merely requires the challenged legisla- <br />tion to be supported by any set of facts either known or which <br />could reasonably be assumed." The city had argued that even <br />though it had not articulated the reasons for the prohibition of <br />billboard extensions, it could be assumed that the prohibition <br />promoted "the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens <br />of [the city]." The court disagreed with the city. The court found <br />that rule did not apply here. Rather, it applied to municipal ac- <br />tions based on authority granted under a different Minnesota stat- <br />ute—§ 327C.095, subds. 1-5. <br />Notice and Hearing (Due Process) —City Zoning <br />Inspector Orders Asphalt Driveway Be Removed <br />and Threatens Litigation <br />Homeowners contends inspectors actions violated their due <br />process rights <br />Citation: Hussein v. City of Perrysburg, 2010 WL 3271727 (6th <br />Cir. 2010) <br />The Sixth U.S. Circuit has jurisdiction over Kentucky, Michigan, <br />Ohio, and Tennessee. <br />U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (OHIO) (08/20/10)—This case <br />addressed whether a citizen's constitutional due process rights —typi- <br />cally a notice and hearing —are violated by: a zoning official stating his <br />or her view that a citizen is in violation of zoning laws, and the zoning <br />official threatening litigation. <br />_ The Background/Facts: Dr. Fadhil Hussein and Raya Ahmed (col- <br />lectively, the "Hussein") constructed a home in the city. Their builder <br />"failed to adhere to a number of zoning ordinances in the course of <br />constructing [their] home." In June 2006, the city zoning inspector, <br />4 © 2010 Thomson Reuters <br />92 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.