My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/05/2013
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
2013
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/05/2013
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 10:18:24 AM
Creation date
9/17/2013 11:53:28 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
09/05/2013
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
113
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 July 10, 2013 I Volume 7 I Issue 13 <br />The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Depai talent, New York, <br />first noted that the BSA and DOB were responsible for administering and <br />enforcing the zoning resolution. The court said that "their interpretation <br />must therefore be given great weight and judicial deference, so long as <br />the interpretation is neither irrational, unreasonable nor inconsistent with <br />the governing statute." <br />The court held that the BSA had "rationally deteiniined that the defini- <br />tion of `transient hotel' in . . . the Zoning Resolution [was] clear and <br />unambiguous and that the proposed use of the building [as a homeless <br />shelter] [met] the three criteria of the definition." Specifically, the court <br />found that BRC's proposed homeless shelter: (1) provided sleeping ac- <br />commodations used primarily for transient occupancy; (2) had a com- <br />mon entrance to serve the sleeping accommodations; and (3) provided <br />24-hour desk service, housekeeping, telephone, and linen laundering. <br />Case Note: <br />The Chelsea Coalition had also argued that the City should have submitted the <br />proposed homeless shelter to a Uniform Land Use Review Procedure <br />("ULURP') review The court held that ULURP was not required because: (1) <br />the City did not have a lease or the fitnctional equivalent of a leas e of the build- <br />ing; and (2) the contract between the BRC and the City's Department of Home- <br />less Services was not shown to be part of an actual housing and urban renewal <br />plan. <br />Case Note: <br />The Chelsea Coalition had further contended that BRC's homeless shelter oper- <br />ated in violation of the City's Administrative Code. The Administrative Code <br />stipulated that "[nko shelter for adults shall be operated with a census of more <br />than [200] persons." The court said that, even assuming a census in excess of <br />200 persons, the building was permitted as a grandfathered shelter under the <br />"Camp LaGuardia" exception to the Administrative Code's 200-bed limit. <br />Under that Administrative Code exception, the Camp LaGuardia Shelter operat- <br />ing with a census of 1,017 persons can be replaced with two shelters each with a <br />maximum census of 400 persons. <br />Zoning News from Around the <br />Nation <br />FLORIDA <br />Governor Rick Scott recently signed into law legislation that "applies <br />© 2013 Thomson Reuters 11 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.