My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/01/2014
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
2014
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/01/2014
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 10:20:59 AM
Creation date
5/28/2014 1:28:41 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
05/01/2014
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
139
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 April 10, 2014 1 Volume 8 1 Issue 7 <br />court said a party has constructive notice when the evidence "is `sufficient <br />to place on [that party] a duty of inquiry' regarding the . . . permit." Here, <br />the court found that the Neighbors were on constructive notice from early <br />2010, when they first learned that Dias had requested a zoning determination. <br />The court also noted that the Neighbors had failed to inquire about that de- <br />termination after March 12. Under those circumstances, the court found that <br />the Neighbors "failed to satisfy their duty of inquiry." <br />The court concluded that the Neighbors had adequate notice of the build- <br />ing commissioner's March 26, 2010, decision at a point in time sufficient <br />for them to honor the 30 -day appeal period; consequently, their appeal was <br />untimely, thereby depriving the zoning board and the superior court ofjuris- <br />diction to entertain their appeal. <br />See also: Connors v. Annino, 460 Mass. 790, 955 N.E.2d 905 (2011). <br />See also:Gallivan v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Wellesley, 71 Mass. App. <br />Ct. 850, 887 N.E.2d 1087 (2008). <br />Case Note: <br />Although having found the Neighbors' appeal untimely, the court also went on to <br />conclude that Dias's proposed common driveway was a permissible accessory use <br />under the Town's zoning by -law. <br />Validity of Zoning Regulation — <br />Municipal ordinance limits to 30% <br />the number of lots on a block <br />eligible to obtain certification as <br />rental property <br />Property owners challenge ordinance as <br />unconstitutional <br />Citation: Dean v. City of Winona, 2014 WL 684689 (Minn. Ct. App. 2014) <br />MINNESOTA (02/24/14) —This case addressed the issues of: (1) <br />whether a municipality may use its police power to limit the number of lots <br />on a block that are eligible to obtain certification as a rental property; and <br />(2) whether an ordinance that limits the number of lots on a block that are <br />eligible to obtain certification as a rental property violates equal protection <br />or due process under the Minnesota Constitution. <br />The Background /Facts: In 2005, the City of Winona (the "City ") <br />adopted an ordinance that limits to 30% the number of lots on a block that <br />are eligible to obtain certification as a rental property (the "Ordinance" or <br />© 2014 Thomson Reuters 9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.