My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/06/2014
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
2014
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/06/2014
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 10:20:44 AM
Creation date
3/14/2014 9:02:01 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
03/06/2014
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
222
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 <br />January 25, 2014 I Volume 8 1 Issue 2 <br />However, the court noted that its holding did not prevent Wapiti Park from <br />continuing to operate the campground as a nonconforming use, nor did it <br />require Wapiti Park to destroy the replacement building. However, Wapiti Park <br />could not lawfully use the building until it obtained renewal of the interim -use <br />permit and complied with the conditions of the permit. <br />The court emphasized that its ruling did not prevent municipalities from <br />otherwise enforcing regulations to protect the public against harmfid noncon- <br />forming uses. The court noted that the legislature had authorized municipalities <br />to "impose upon nonconformities reasonable regulations . . . to protect the <br />public health, welfare, or safety." (Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 1 e(b)) Thus, <br />said the court, "[m]unicipalities can enforce these regulations against <br />nonconformities, for instance, by seeking a temporary injunction' against the <br />nonconformity to cease operations until it complies with the regulations." (See <br />Minn. Stat. 5C 462.362 (2012)) <br />Proceedings Planning board <br />e-mails applicant but not abutting <br />landowners opposed to proposed <br />project <br />Abutting landowners say that ex parte <br />communication violated their due process <br />rights <br />Citation: Duffy v. Town of Berwick, 2013 ME 105, 2013 WL 6328477 <br />(Me. 2013) <br />MAINE (12/5/13)—This case addressed the issue of whether an ex <br />parte e-mail tainted a planning board's decision to approve a permit and <br />violated a landowner's due process rights. <br />The Background/Facts: Berwick Iron & Metal Recycling, Inc. <br />("Berwick Iron") operated a metal and automobile recycling business in <br />a rural commercial and industrial district in the Town of Berwick, Maine <br />(the "Town"). The facility had been operating under an existing <br />conditional use peiiuit for automobile recycling. In September 2010, <br />Berwick Iron applied for a conditional use permit to install and operate a <br />metal shredder for vehicles. <br />Among other things, to obtain the conditional use permit, the proposed <br />metal shredder had to meet Town ordinance standards for air emissions <br />and noise. Presented with conflicting air emissions studies from Berwick <br />Iron and abutting landowners who opposed the proposed shredder, the <br />Town Planning Board (the "Board") decided to hire an environmental <br />©2014 Thomson Reuters 7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.