My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/07/2011
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
2011
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/07/2011
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 10:06:52 AM
Creation date
4/1/2011 2:22:53 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
04/07/2011
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
264
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
Zoning Bulletin January 10, 2011 I Volume 5 I No. 1 <br />vate water system "due to the 18 years [(i.e., from 1990 to 2008)] of per- <br />mission the Muths had been given to use their private water systems." <br />The Authority argued that the Muths' vested rights claim failed. The <br />court of common pleas agreed and dismissed the Muths' complaint. <br />The Muths appealed. <br />DECISION: Affirmed. <br />The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania held that the Muths were <br />not entitled, under the "vested rights doctrine," to recover against the <br />Authority for requiring them to join the municipal water line. <br />The court explained that "[t]he vested rights doctrine permits a land- <br />owner to use his property without obtaining a variance." The doctrine <br />applies only "to those cases where the applicant, in good faith, relies <br />upon a permit issued in error and incurs significant non - recoverable <br />costs," said the court. Here, the Muths did not incur - significant costs in <br />reliance upon.a permit issued by either the township or the Authority. <br />No related permit was ever issued to the Muths. Accordingly, the court <br />concluded that the Muths could not claim nor recover against • the Au- <br />thority on the basis of vested rights. <br />See also: Chateau Woods, Inc. v. Lower Paxton Tp., 772 A.2d 122 (Pa. <br />Commw. Ct. 2001). <br />Telecommunications Uses — Telecommun <br />Company Says Local Planning Commission Has <br />Jurisdiction Over Its Proposed Tower <br />Adjacent property owner maintains the Public Service <br />Commission instead has jurisdiction <br />Citation: Kentucky Public Service Com'n v. Shadoan, 2010 WL <br />4679513 (Ky. 2010) <br />KENTUCKY (11/18/10) —This case involves the construction of a Ken- <br />tucky statute governing the siting of cellular antenna towers to determine <br />whether jurisdiction over matters relating to cellular tower placement and <br />construction rest with the local planning unit or the Kentucky Public Service <br />Commission (an administrative body that regulates utilities in Kentucky). <br />The Background/Facts: In September 2005, Bluegrass Wireless filed <br />with the Kentucky Public Service Commission (the "PSC ") an application <br />to secure a certificate of public convenience and necessity for the construc- <br />tion of a proposed cellular tower on certain property in a Kentucky city. <br />Adjacent property owners Glenn and Sue Shadoan sought to inter- <br />vene in the application process. The PSC granted their request. Thereaf- <br />ter, however, Bluegrass Wireless asked the PSC to dismiss the application <br />© 2011 Thomson Reuters 9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.