My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/03/2011
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
2011
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/03/2011
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 10:09:19 AM
Creation date
10/31/2011 8:07:42 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
11/03/2011
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
127
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 September 10, 2011 I Volume 5 I No. 17 <br />the Developer never used its property in the manner authorized by the ap- <br />provals for Projects 2 and 3 because Price had successfully challenged the <br />validity of those approvals. "Thus, even assuming a property owner could <br />be found to have abandoned a site plan approval and associated variances <br />if it actually developed the property in accordance with subsequent land <br />use approvals, that [was] not what occurred in this case." <br />See also: Stop & Shop Supermarket Co. v. Board of Adjustment of Tp. <br />of Springfield, 162 N.J. 418, 744 A.2d 1169 (2000). <br />See also: Dimitrov v. Carlson, 138 N.J. Super. 52, 350 A.2d 246 (App. <br />Div. 1975). <br />Case Note: In its decision, the court found additional support for <br />its conclusion in "substantial policy considerations." The court <br />noted that one of the purposes of the MLUL is to "encourage the <br />most appropriate use of land." Consequently, the court said that a <br />landowner should not be "precluded from seeking the approvals re- <br />quired for an alternative, [more productive,] form of development"; <br />or "inhibited [from seeking such approval] out of a concern that it <br />will forfeit the prior approvals." <br />Zoning News from Around the Nation <br />CALIFORNIA <br />The U.S. Justice Department recently settled a religious discrimination <br />lawsuit against the Southern California city of Walnut. The Justice De- <br />partment had alleged that Walnut violated federal law prohibiting reli- <br />gious discrimination in land use and zoning decisions when it denied a <br />permit to a group seeking to build a Buddhist center. The Justice Depart- <br />ment alleged that Walnut treated the Zen Center differently than the city <br />had treated other religious facilities. <br />Source: San Francisco Chronicle; httb://articles.sft'ate.com/ <br />MICWGAN <br />A bill (HB 4746 and SB 470), recently signed into law by Governor <br />Rick Snyder, amends the state Zoning Enabling Act by prohibiting lo- <br />cal governments from restricting mining activities unless "very serious <br />consequences" would result. The new law negates a 2010 Michigan Su- <br />preme Court decision that held that Leelanau County's Kasson Town- <br />ship may restrict gravel mining through zoning. <br />Source: Leelanau Enterprise; www.leelanaunews.com <br />© 2011 Thomson Reuters 11 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.