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
Zoning Bulletin November 10, 2014 I Volume 8 I Issue 21 <br />tion for the production of an agricultural, agronomic, horticultural, silvicul- <br />tural, or aquacultural crop or commodity. Because none of the raw materials <br />from the mulching operation were produced on the property and none of the <br />resulting mulch was used for the production of livestock, crops, or agricultural <br />commodities on the property, the court concluded that the mulching operation <br />was not a "normal agricultural operation" as defined by § 2 of the Right to <br />Farm Act. <br />See also: Stoltzfus v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Eden Tp., Lancaster County, <br />937A.2d 548 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2007). <br />See also: Gaspari v. Board of Adjustment of Muhlenberg Tp., 392 Pa. 7, <br />139 A.2d 544 (1958). <br />See also: Clout, Inc. v. Clinton County Zoning Hearing Bd., 657 A.2d 111 <br />(Pa. Commw. Ct. 1995). <br />Right of Review/Waiver— <br />Landowners proceed with coastal <br />construction while their challenge to <br />permit conditions is pending <br />Coastal Commission maintains landowners <br />therefore waived their right to challenge the permit <br />conditions <br />Citation: Lynch v. California Coastal Commission, 229 Cal. App. 4th 658, <br />177 Cal. Rptr. 3d 654 (4th Dist. 2014) <br />CALIFORNIA (09/09/14)—This case addressed the issue of whether land- <br />owners had an "under protest" exception that allowed them to challenge permit <br />conditions after construction. <br />The Background/Facts: Barbara Lynch and Thomas Frick (collectively, <br />"Landowners") owned adjacent, bluff -top homes in Encinitas, California. In <br />2003, Landowners applied to the City of Encinitas (the "City") for authoriza- <br />tion to replace a wooden erosion control structure and the mid -bluff wall (the <br />"Project"). As part of the Project, Landowners also planned to remove and <br />replace the lower section of a private stairway along the bluff face, which <br />provided them with beach access from their homes. <br />In 2009, the City approved the Project. The City conditioned its approval <br />on Landowners obtaining a permit from the California Coastal Commission <br />(the "Commission"). <br />Also in 2009, Landowners applied to the Commission for the required <br />permit. While their application was pending, a severe storm caused the bluff <br />below Lynch's home to collapse. The collapse destroyed portions of the <br />wooden erosion control structure, mid -bluff wall, and stairway. By the time <br />the Commission considered the permit application in 2011, respondents were <br />© 2014 Thomson Reuters 9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.