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 October 10, 2014 I Volume 8 I Issue 19 <br />See also: Omnipoint Holdings, Inc. v. City of Southfield, 355 F.3d 601 (6th <br />Cir. 2004). <br />See also: Helcher v. Dearborn County, 595 F.3d 710, 64 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 661 <br />(7th Cir. 2010). <br />See also: MetroPCS, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco, 400 F.3d 715 <br />(9th Cir. 2005). <br />See also: Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems, Inc. v. Todd, 244 F.3d 51, 31 <br />Envtl. L. Rep. 20578 (1st Cir. 2001). <br />See also: AT & T Wireless PCS, Inc. v. City Council of City of Virginia Beach, <br />155 F.3d 423 (4th Cir. 1998). <br />See also: T-Mobile South, LLC v. City ofMilton, Ga., 728 F.3d 1274 (11 th Cir. <br />2013). <br />Case Note: <br />In its decision, the court also noted an additional approach (besides the three mentioned in <br />the summary above) that has been adopted by courts interpreting the TCA's "in writing" <br />requirement: A number of district courts have adopted an approach that interprets the <br />TCA's "in writing" requirement as requiring that the denial itself and the "written rec- <br />ord" be separate documents and that the denial itself set forth the reasons for the decision, <br />with conclusions linked to evidence in the record. (See, e.g., Smart SMR of New York, Inc. <br />v. Zoning Com'n of Town of Stratford, 995 F. Supp. 52 (D. Conn. 1998); and Omnipoint <br />Communications, Inc. v. Planning & Zoning Com'n of Town of Wallingford, 83 F. Supp. <br />2d 306, 309 (D. Conn. 2000).) <br />Case Note: <br />Prior to this decision, the Eighth Circuit had assumed without deciding that the majority <br />rule was correct. (See Sprint Spectrum, L.P. v. Platte County, Mo., 578 F.3d 727 731-32 <br />(8th Cir. 2009).) <br />onconforming Use —City says new <br />tenant mobile homes cannot replace <br />those that vacate at nonconforming <br />mobile home park <br />Park owner contends continued placement of mobile <br />homes on the property is a permissible continuation <br />of the nonconforming use <br />Citation: Cleveland MHC LLC v. City of Richland, 2014 WL 4067207 (Miss. <br />Ct. App. 2014) <br />MISSISSIPPI (08/19/14)—This case addressed the issue of whether a landow- <br />©2014 Thomson Reuters 7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.