My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/02/2013
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
2013
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/02/2013
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 10:17:58 AM
Creation date
4/29/2013 3:01:47 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
05/02/2013
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
143
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, 2013 1 Volume 7 I Issue 6 <br />transfer zone that are encumbered by transferable development rights <br />easements. Bethel had failed to produce any evidence suggesting that religious <br />organizations were left without a reasonable opportunity to build elsewhere in <br />the County. Thus, the court held that Bethel's unreasonable limitation claim <br />failed as a matter of law. <br />Finally, the court also concluded that Bethel's constitutional claims —that <br />the County violated its. free exercise and equal protection rights —also failed. <br />Bethel's free exercise violation claim failed because Bethel could not show <br />that the Ordinance was not rationally related to a legitimate governmental <br />interest. Also, Bethel's equal protection rights violation claim failed because <br />Bethel failed to show that the County discriminated against it on the basis of <br />religion and the County's actions were rationally related to a legitimate <br />governmental interest. <br />See also: Westchester Day School v. Village of Mamaroneck, 504 F.3d 338, <br />226 Ed. Law Rep. 595 (2d Cir. 2007). <br />See also: Guru Nanak Sikh Soc. of Yuba City v. County of Sutter, 456 F.3d <br />978 (9th Cir. 2006). <br />See also: Midrash Sephardi, Inc. v. Town of Surfside, 366 F.3d 1214 (11 th <br />Cir. 2004). <br />See also: Civil Liberties for Urban Believers v. City of Chicago, 342 F.3d <br />752 (7th Cir. 2003). <br />Zoning News from Around the Nation <br />CALIFORNIA <br />In early February, California's highest court heard arguments over whether <br />municipalities can ban medical marijuana dispensaries. "In essence, the court <br />will decide, when it comes to medical marijuana, whether federal or state laws <br />prevail here in California, and whether cities can regulate dispensaries through <br />zoning laws." <br />Source: KCET; www.kcet.org <br />Several municipalities are reportedly using zoning and health laws to close <br />so-called "maternity hotels," which house immigrants who want to deliver <br />their babies in the United States. <br />Source: Diamondbar-Walnut Patch; htto://diamondbar-walnut.natch.coin <br />ILLINOIS <br />State legislators are considering a bill that would allow the production and <br />sale of medical cannabis at special distribution centers throughout Illinois. <br />The legislation would permit a pilot program for growing, harvesting and <br />distributing cannabis to patients diagnosed with a debilitating medical condi- <br />tion from a single facility in each state senate district. The bill failed to make it <br />to a vote during a lame -duck session last year. The bill preempts home rule <br />authority, so municipalities would not be able to "opt out" of the program. The <br />Metropolitan Mayors Caucus has suggested that municipalities adopt regula- <br />© 2013 Thomson Reuters 11 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.