My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/05/2011
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
2011
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/05/2011
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 10:06:58 AM
Creation date
4/29/2011 1:03:38 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
05/05/2011
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.
/
394
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 March 25, 2011 I Volume 51 No. 6 <br />agreed that the more specific statutory provision—S 13-7-204, which al- <br />) luded to the function of a municipality's planning commission and the <br />municipality's legislative body with respect to the amendment of the mu- <br />nicipal zoning ordinance —controlled over the more general statutory <br />provision—S 12-4-101(c)(3)(B), which contained general provisions on <br />the actions of public official with respect to the contracts of a municipal- <br />ity or other political subdivision. <br />The court found that § 13-7-204 was "clearly intended to address <br />precisely the situation presented here[]." Interpreting the statutory lan- <br />guage, the court found it clear and unambiguous: "Under [S] 13-7-204, <br />a favorable vote from the majority of the entire seven -member Board <br />was required to enact Cox's proposed amendment to the [t]own zoning <br />ordinance." Since Cox's application received only three votes, the Board <br />correctly determined that the proposed amendment had failed, conclud- <br />ed the court. <br />See also: Arnwine v. Union County Bd. of Educ., 120 S.W.3d 804, 183 <br />Ed. Law Rep. 603 (Tenn. 2003). <br />See also: Carson Creek Vacation Resorts, Inc. v. State, Dept. of Revenue, <br />865 S. W.2d 1 (Tenn. 1993). <br />Case Note: The trial court had also found that the Board's decision <br />was arbitrary and capricious. The appellate court disagreed. <br />Conditions —Town Says Applicant Violated <br />Ordinance Because He Failed to Comply With <br />State Permit <br />Applicant argues town lacks authority to enforce conditions <br />of state permit <br />Citation: Town of Vassalboro v. Barnett, 2011 ME 21, 2011 WL <br />505227 (Me. 2011) <br />MAINE (02/15/11)—This case addressed the issue of whether a town <br />had the authority to enforce conditions of a landowner's Maine Depart- <br />ment of Transportation ("MDOT") permit. <br />The Background/Facts: Leo Barnett applied to the town's planning <br />board (the "Board") for a subdivision permit. The town's, Subdivision <br />Ordinance (the "Ordinance") performance standards required that "[a] <br />ny and all required permits from the [MDOT] shall be submitted" to the <br />Board before it approves a subdivision application. Barnett submitted his <br />© 2011 Thomson Reuters 9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.