My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/09/2014
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
2014
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/09/2014
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 10:20:30 AM
Creation date
3/14/2014 9:44:27 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
01/09/2014
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
158
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 October 25, 2013 I Volume 7 I Issue 20 <br />See also: People v. Superior Court (Lucero), 49 Cal. 3d 14, 259 Cal. <br />Rptr. 740, 774 P.2d 769, 775, 10 A.L.R.5th 1037 (1989). <br />See also: Executive Arts Studio, Inc. v. City of Grand Rapids, 391 <br />F.3d 783, 796, 2004 FED App. 0425P (6th Cir. 2004). <br />See also: Pensack v. City and County of Denver, 630 F. Stipp. 177, <br />181 (D. Colo. 1986). <br />Compare: BZAPS, Inc. v. City of Mankato, 268 F.3d 603, 607 (8th <br />Cir. 2001) (upholding city's application of adult zoning ordinance to a <br />single adult amusement performance). <br />Case Note: <br />Although the court's reading of the City ordinance eliminated the need for the <br />court to address the constitutional questions of whether the ordinance <br />infringed on the Guild's free speech rights, the court did note that: "[c]ourts <br />have expressed the concern that when municipalities include ordinary, gener- <br />ally non -adult amusement businesses in the sweep of their `erogenous zoning' <br />ordinances, they risk losing their focus on secondary effects, and may instead <br />unconstitutionally target the content of the adult entertainment." The court <br />noted that several courts have held that it would be unconstitutional for a <br />municipality to place zoning restrictions on businesses that occasionally <br />feature adult entertainment. Still, also noted the court, "Not all courts that <br />have considered the issue agree that it is unconstitutional to zone a business <br />as `adult' based on a single or occasional instance of adult entertainment." <br />Proceedings/Telecommunications <br />Act —City denies cell phone tower <br />construction permits in letters that <br />do not detail reasons for denials <br />Mobile phone service provider contends <br />failure to detail reasons in denial letters <br />violates the Telecommunications Act <br />Citation: T-Mobile South, LLC v. City of Milton, Ga., 2013 WL <br />4750549 (11 th Cir. 2013) <br />The Eleventh Circuit has jurisdiction over Alabama, Florida, and <br />Georgia. <br />© 2013 Thomson Reuters <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.