My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/07/2014
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
2014
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/07/2014
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 10:21:18 AM
Creation date
8/18/2014 9:38:06 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
08/07/2014
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.
/
290
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 May 10, 2014 I Volume 8 I Issue 9 <br />presumed to be valid unless clearly shown to be arbitrary and capricious. <br />Further explained the court, a zoning action not taken in accordance with <br />the law is arbitrary and capricious. <br />Here, the court found that throughout the entire rezoning process, <br />members of the Council were advised, and believed, that, as a result of a <br />change in the UDC from a three -step to a two-step review process, the <br />Traffic Information was not relevant to their decision and the Traffic In- <br />formation was not legally available to them. However, the Court of Chan- <br />cery had found the development plan was actually being reviewed under <br />the three -step process. Thus, concluded the court, even if those changes <br />had the claimed effect, they still could not have prevented the Council <br />from obtaining the Traffic Information. <br />The court concluded that "mistake of law undermined the Council's <br />deliberative process and therefore rendered its vote arbitrary and <br />capricious." <br />See also: Tate v. Miles, 503 A.2d 187 (Del. 1986). <br />See also: New Castle County Council v. BC Development Associates, <br />567 A.2d 1271 (Del. 1989). <br />Case Note: <br />Having affirmed on the basis of the arbitrary and capricious vote, the court did <br />not reach the other claims that were brought on cross-appeal—i.e., whether <br />bS 2662 and the UDC required the Council to consider a traffic analysis before <br />voting on a rezoning ordinance. As to those issues, the court said it left that to the <br />appropriate legislative bodies to consider in the first instance, or for later judicial <br />resolution in a case where answering therm was necessary. <br />Use —Property ownermaintains <br />animal crematorium is permitted <br />agricultural use as "Animal <br />Husbandry" <br />Zoning Inspector says it fits the definition of <br />"cemetery" and is not permitted on property <br />Citation: Artz v. Elizabeth Twp., 2014-Ohio-854, 2014 WL 895419 <br />(Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. Miami County 2014) <br />OHIO (03/7/14)—This case addressed the issues of whether the opera- <br />tion of an animal crematorium was a permitted principal use under the <br />definition of an agricultural use under township zoning resolutions, 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.