My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/06/2014
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
2014
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/06/2014
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 10:21:37 AM
Creation date
12/5/2014 10:44:55 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
11/06/2014
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
77
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 September 25, 2014 l Volume 8 I Issue 18 <br />Case Note: <br />In its decision, the court noted that challenges to local land -use decisions gener- <br />ally rely on the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Con- <br />stitution (as incorporated by the 14th Amendment) (i.e., procedural due process <br />claims) or the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Only a "theoreti- <br />cal possibility" had been acknowledged by courts that a land -use decision could <br />amount to a deprivation of property without substantive due process. <br />Case Note: <br />CEnergy had argued that a writ of mandamus to force action from the Town was <br />not a possibility because mandamus could not be used to force legislative action. <br />The court said that although CEnergy might be right, its argument depended on <br />the premise that a decision about the building permits was a legislative one. <br />"But if the building permit decision was legislative, then it was discretionary. In <br />that case CEnergy had no property right in the permits, meaning that the Board 's <br />delay in granting them could not have been a deprivation of property that could <br />support a due process claim." <br />Procedural Requirements —City <br />adopts land use initiative <br />proposed by voters <br />Business association contends City Council <br />violated state environmental laws by adopting <br />the ordinance without first conducting a <br />complete environmental review <br />Citation: Tuolumne Jobs & Small Business Alliance v. Superior Court, <br />2014 WL 3867558 (Cal. 2014) <br />CALIFORNIA (08/07/14)—This case addressed the issue of a city <br />government's obligations in adopting a land use initiative proposed by <br />voters. More specifically, it addressed whether a legislative body must <br />obtain full California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") review <br />before it may adopt a voter initiative under Elections Code § 9214(a). <br />The Background/Facts: Wa1-Mart Stores, Inc. ("Wa1-Mart") oper- <br />ated a store in the City of Sonora, California (the "City"). In 2007, Wal- <br />Mart sought to expand its store to allow it to become a Wal-Mart <br />© 2014 Thomson Reuters 5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.