My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/04/2014
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
2014
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/04/2014
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 10:21:44 AM
Creation date
12/5/2014 9:51:18 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
12/04/2014
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.
/
291
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
October 25, 2014 ( Volume 8 I Issue 20 Zoning Bulletin <br />language in G.L. c. 40A, § 6, suggesting that its grandfathering pro- <br />visions for nonconforming uses and structures have application to <br />confoiining uses and structures. <br />Here, because the Facility and the Proposed project were dimen- <br />sionally conforming structures that served a nonconforming use, the <br />appellate court concluded that the land court judge had "ap- <br />propriately directed his focus to the sole question of import: whether <br />the [P]roject proposed a `change or substantial extension' of the <br />nonconfoiiiiing use." To answer that question, the land court judge <br />had applied the following "familiar three -pronged test," looking at: <br />"(1) whether the proposed use reflects the nature and purpose of the <br />use prevailing when the zoning ordinance took effect"; "(2) whether <br />there is a difference in the quality or character, as well as the degree, <br />of use"; and "(3) whether the proposed use is different in kind in its <br />effect on the neighborhood." The land court judge had concluded <br />that the Project did not work a "change or substantial extension of <br />the use," and the appellate court found that deteiiiiination was sup- <br />ported by the factual findings. <br />See also: Powers v. Building Inspector of Barnstable, 363 Mass. <br />648, 296 N.E.2d 491 (1973) (applying three pronged test for <br />determining whether a proposed project proposes a "change or <br />substantial extension" of the nonconforming use). <br />See also: Cape Resort Hotels, Inc. v. Alcoholic Licensing Bd. of <br />Falmouth, 385 Mass. 205, 431 N.E.2d 213 (1982). <br />See also: Barron Chevrolet, Inc. v. Town of Danvers, 419 Mass. <br />404, 646 N.E.2d 89 (1995). <br />Preemption— ity ays school <br />district bleach project is <br />subject to city zonin« or inance <br />School district contends that per state <br />constitution and statutes city zoning <br />power stopped at school district property <br />line <br />Citation: Gurba v. Community High School Dist. No. 155, 2014 <br />IL App (2d) 140098, 2014 WL 4351426 (Ill. App. Ct. 2d Dist. 2014) <br />ILLINOIS (09/03/14)—This case addressed the issue of whether <br />8 © 2014 Thomson Reuters <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.