My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/04/2013
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
2013
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/04/2013
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 10:17:50 AM
Creation date
4/1/2013 8:35:25 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
04/04/2013
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
163
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 February 25, 2013 I Volume 7 1 Issue 4 <br />households. In contrast, noted the court, housing that is subsidized by a <br />Federal or State government or agency under a program to assist the <br />construction of affordable, housing, typically: must satisfy minimum <br />requirements designed to ensure the quality of the housing and the <br />reasonableness of the sale and resale price; and is restricted to "income <br />eligible households" that meet maximum income thresholds. Without <br />the use restriction, noted the court, there would be no guarantee that <br />housing currently priced within the range targeted to income eligible <br />families would be ultimately occupied by them or that it would remain <br />affordable. In light of those differences between subsidized affordable <br />housing units and unsubsidized market -rate units, the court concluded <br />that: "evidence of low cost market -rate housing cannot be factored into <br />the consideration of the regional need for affordable housing." <br />Here, the court found there was substantial evidence to support the <br />HAC's finding that the existing subsidized housing in the region did not <br />adequately address the regional need for housing. <br />See also: ZoningBd. ofAppeals of Wellesley v. Housing Appeals Com- <br />mittee, 385 Mass. 651, 433 N.E.2d 873 (1982). <br />Change of Regulations as <br />Affecting Right While a <br />challenge to the validity of county <br />regulations is being weighed, <br />developer obtains permits under <br />regulations <br />After regulations are found to have been <br />adopted partly in violation of state Taw, <br />opponents to development argue permits <br />issued under regulations are invalid <br />Citation: Town of Woodway v. Snohomish County, 291 P.3d 278 <br />(Wash. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013) <br />WASHINGTON (01/07/13) —This case addresses the issue of <br />whether a property owner's development peuuit application vests to the <br />county's regulations at the time the permit application is filed, despite <br />the fact that the county's regulations are later found to be adopted partly <br />in violation of state environmental law. More generally, it addresses the <br />issue of what happens to development permit applications filed with <br />© 2013 Thomson Reuters 5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.