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 />February 10, 2014 ( Volume 8 I Issue 3 <br />See also: Metzger v. Lehigh Valley Trust&Safe Deposit Co., 220 Pa. <br />535, 69 A. 1037 (1908). <br />See also: In re Hamill's Estate, 487 Pa. 592, 410 A.2d 770 (1980). <br />Case Note: <br />The Commonwealth had argued that several municipalities that challenged Act 13 <br />lacked standing. Among other things, the Commonwealth contended that the harm <br />claimed by the municipalities was illusory because local governments (political <br />subdivisions) have no inherent legal interest in the power to make land use <br />determinations within their boundaries, and because municipalities do not enjoy <br />constitutional protections similar to those of citizens. The Citizens had responded <br />that the municipalities had standing because Act 13 required them to act conflict <br />with their functions, duties, and responsibilities under the Pennsylvania Constitu- <br />tion and other laws. The court agreed with the Citizens. It found that the <br />municipalities had standing to challenge Act 13. In so holding, the court noted <br />that a political subdivision has a substantial, direct, and immediate interest in <br />protecting the environment and the quality of life within its borders, which interest <br />confers upon the political subdivision standing in a legal action to enforce <br />environmental standards. Local government, therefore, has a substantial and <br />direct interest in the outcome of litigation premised upon changes, or serious and <br />imminent risk of changes, which would alter the physical nature of the political <br />subdivision and of various components of the environment, concluded the court. <br />The case involved additional constitutional challenges to Act 13. Given the subject <br />matter of this bulletin, only those related to municipal zoning are addressed herein. <br />Area Requirements —Wireless <br />communications company leases <br />portion of land from landowners <br />and then applies for zoning <br />approval to construct tower <br />Residents contend lease of land creates new <br />lot that fails to meet area and setback <br />requirements <br />Citation: Horton v. Town of Casco, 2013 ME 111, 2013 WL 6685140 <br />(Me. 2013) <br />©2014 Thomson Reuters 7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.