My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/18/2013 - Special
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
2013
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/18/2013 - Special
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 10:18:11 AM
Creation date
7/24/2013 11:23:59 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Title
Special
Document Date
07/18/2013
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
160
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 June 10, 2013 I Volume 7 I Issue 11 <br />properties was made under its required examination of the character of the <br />locality in determining whether the variance would be consistent with the <br />"spirit of the ordinance." The court also noted that the statutory mandate <br />limits standing to persons "directly affected" by the ZBA's decision (See <br />RSA 677:2,:4). It also found that Hannaford's "generalized interest" in the <br />outcome of the ZBA's proceeding was insufficient. <br />Hannaford had also argued that it suffered a "direct injury" because the <br />ZBA's decision allowed for "unfair or illegal" competition —caused by <br />the ZBA's grant to RMD of a variance from a "generally -applicable" zon- <br />ing ordinance. The court noted that, in effect, Hannaford was arguing that <br />any business should be permitted to challenge the validity of any ZBA de- <br />cision to grant a variance to a competitor. The court rejected such a stan- <br />dard, saying that the "appeal of a ZBA decision is not a weapon to be used <br />to stifle business competition." <br />In conclusion, the court held that, although the second and fourth fac- <br />tors weighed in favor of standing, because Hannaford lacked proximity <br />and failed to allege any concrete injury to its particular property as a result <br />of the ZBA's determination, the factors, on balance, did not support Han- <br />naford's standing to appeal. <br />See also: Weeks Restaurant Corp. v. City of Dover, 119 N.H. 541, 404 <br />A.2d 294 (1979). <br />See also: Nautilus of Exeter, Inc. v. Town of Exeter, 139 N.H. 450, 656 <br />A.2d 407 (1995). <br />First Amendment —City zoning <br />ordinances restrict location options <br />for adult entertainment businesses <br />Prospective adult club owner argues <br />insufficient available sites remain in violation of <br />th&First Amendment <br />Citation: Lund v. City of Fall River, MA, 2013 WL 1731263 (1st Cir. <br />2013) <br />The First Circuit has jurisdiction over Maine, Massachusetts, New <br />Hampshire, Puerto Rico, and Rhode Island. <br />FIRST CIRCUIT (MASSACHUSETTS) (04/22/13)—This case ad- <br />dressed the issue of whether city ordinances restricting the location of <br />adult entertainment businesses provided reasonable alternative avenues of - <br />communication so as to withstand a First Amendment challenge. <br />The Background/Facts: Gary Lund ("Lund") sought to open an adult <br />entertainment business —"Club Martinique" —at a location in an Industrial <br />©2013 Thomson Reuters 7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.