My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/02/2010
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
2010
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/02/2010
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 10:04:29 AM
Creation date
11/29/2010 3:49:33 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
12/02/2010
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
92
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
October 25, 20101 Volume 41 No. 20 Zoning Bulletin <br />amendment ...." The court found that § 165-11 authorized the Board <br />to "make appropriate changes ...'in the proposed amendment" after <br />the public hearing. Thus, the court found there was no language in <br />the county code that prohibited the Board, "with the written consent <br />of the applicant property owners, from amending the written proffer <br />after discussion and public hearing." <br />Accordingly, the court held that the Board "was entitled to amend <br />the original proffer to limit the prohibition on the sale of diesel fuel <br />only to over -the -road truck carriers." <br />See also: Barr v. Town & Country Properties, Inc., 240 Va. 292, 396 <br />S.E.2d 672 (1990). <br />Case Note: The court also found that Virginia Code Annotated <br />§ 15:2-2285(C) "authorized the Board to make changes to the <br />proffers that the Sempeles had submitted." That section enables <br />local government to consider comments during public hearings <br />and to respond to those comments by amending proposed prof- <br />fers. The court found no language in § 15.2-2285(C) that prohib- <br />ited the Board from amending the proffer after the public hearing <br />had occurred. <br />Validity of Zoning Regulation/Proceedings to <br />Amend —Abutters Challenge the Validity of <br />a Town Ordinance Adopting a Smart Growth <br />Zoning District <br />They contend ordinance is invalidated by the town's failure <br />to update developable land figures to the Commonwealth <br />Citation: DiRico v. Town of Kingston, 458 Mass. 83, 2010 WL <br />3620822 (2010) <br />MASSACHUSETTS (09/21/10)—This case addressed whether a <br />town's failure to update developable land figures in its smart growth <br />overlay district application to the Commonwealth invalidated the town <br />ordinance adopting the smart growth zoning overlay district. <br />The Background/Facts: Under Massachusetts law —Mass. Gen. L. c. <br />40R and 760 Code Mass. Regs §§ 59.00—municipalities can apply <br />to the commonwealth for approval of a smart growth zoning district. <br />Such a district is an overlay district that is "superimposed over [one] <br />or more zoning districts in an eligible location." The purpose of such <br />6 © 2010 Thomson Reuters <br />60 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.