Laserfiche WebLink
February 25, 2012 J Volume 6 J No. 4 Zoning Bulletin <br />The appellate court disagreed. It said Tri- Power's proposed interpre- <br />tation would require the court to ignore the legislature's plain language <br />and "read conditions into the statute[s] that are not there." Rather, the <br />court found that the power to give "official consent" or permission nec- <br />essarily entailed the power to deny the same. Therefore, pursuant to § 13 <br />of the Act, a municipality could block the Department's issuance of a <br />permit to operate an oil or gas well within its municipal limits. The court <br />concluded that " [s] ection 13 of the Act thus precludes a finding that the <br />legislature intended the Act to have preemptive effect, and § 11 -56 -1 • of <br />the Code further reflects that intent by giving local units of government <br />the power to regulate and permit local oil and gas mining." Thus, § 5 13 <br />and 11-56 -1 collectively grant municipalities the power to both permit <br />and prohibit local oil and gas wells. <br />See also: Village of Chatham v. County of Sangamon, 216 111. 2d 402, <br />297111. Dec. 249, 837 N.E.2d 29 (2005). <br />See also: People v. Wade, 326 111. App. 3d 396, 260 111. Dec. 74, 760 <br />N.E.2d 491 (3d Dist. 2001), as modified, (Nov. 30, 2001). <br />Case Note: In its holding, the court noted that, under "Dillon's <br />Rule," "non-home-rule units possess only those powers specifically <br />conveyed by the constitution or by statute." Thus, the City could <br />only regulate oil or gas operations if the constitution or statute spe- <br />cifically conveyed such authority. Here, the court found §s 11 -56 -1 <br />and 13 collectively conveyed such authority to the City. <br />Constitutional Validity of Regulation— Sexually- <br />oriented Business Says Statute Limiting its <br />Location is Unconstitutional as Applied to it <br />In analyzing availability of other available areas in which <br />business could operate, court looked outside the State's <br />borders <br />Citation: Borough of Sayreville v. 35 Club L.L.C., 2012 WL 147848 <br />(N.J. 2012) <br />NEW JERSEY (01/19/12)—This case addressed the issue of whether a <br />court may consider the availability of alternative channels of communi- <br />cation that are located in another state when determining an as- applied <br />challenge to the constitutionality of N.J.S.A. 2C:34-7 —a statute that <br />limits the locations of where sexually - oriented businesses may operate. <br />4 © 2012 Thomson Reuters <br />