My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/08/2011
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
2011
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/08/2011
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 10:08:42 AM
Creation date
9/1/2011 2:54:23 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
09/08/2011
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
113
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
July 25, 2011 I Volume 51 No. 14 <br />Zoning Bulletin <br />See also: Perlmart of Lacey, Inc. v. Lacey Tp. Planning Bd., 295 N.J. } `� <br />Super. 234, 684 A.2d 1005 (App. Div. 1996). <br />See also: Township of Stafford v. Stafford Tp. Zoning Bd. of Adjust- <br />ment, 154 N.J. 62, 711 A.2d 282 (1998). <br />Case Note: In its decision, the court gave examples of cases in <br />which it had found the public notice was legally insufficient: It <br />said that a notice describing a proposed use as the "creation of 3 <br />commercial lots with a total of 42.53 acres" "provided no com- <br />mon sense description of the actual uses of those lots." It also said <br />that a notice that a project included "retail/office" units was defi- <br />cient because it failed to disclose that the approval sought included <br />that for a large restaurant with a potential liquor license. <br />Vested Rights —Sign Companies Apply to <br />County For Billboard Permit When Land Is <br />Unincorporated <br />After land is incorporated by cities, cities argue sign <br />companies have no vested right in billboard construction <br />Citation: Fulton County v. Action Outdoor Advertising, JV, 11 Fulton <br />County D. Rep. 1729, 2011 WL 2305974 (Ga. 2011) <br />GEORGIA (06/13/11)—This case addressed the rights of certain <br />sign companies to construct billboards in areas formerly located in <br />unincorporated areas within a county which subsequently became in- <br />corporated cities. It addressed the issue of whether the creation of new <br />cities could retroactively divest sign companies of their vested rights to <br />construct signs pursuant to applications they filed at a time when the <br />proposed billboard sites were in unincorporated areas of the county <br />and the county had no valid sign regulations. <br />The Background/Facts: Action Outdoor Advertising JV, LLC, <br />Boardworks Outdoor Advertising Company, Inc., Granite State Out- <br />door Advertising, Inc., KH Outdoor Advertising, Inc., and Steven Gal- <br />beraith and Larry Roberts (collectively, the "Sign Companies") were <br />companies and owners and principals of companies that leased and <br />constructed billboards for displaying commercial and noncommercial <br />messages. Between May 2003 and November 2006, the Sign Compa- <br />nies submitted complete applications to Fulton County (the "County") <br />for permits to construct billboards at different locations within unin- <br />corporated areas of the County. The County found the signs were pro- <br />4 © 2011 Thomson Reuters <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.