My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/05/2015
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
2015
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/05/2015
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 10:22:35 AM
Creation date
3/9/2015 8:53:25 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
03/05/2015
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.
/
251
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 January 10, 2015 1 Volume 9 1 Issue 1 <br />Case Note: <br />The court noted that its decision comported with decisions in numerous <br />other jurisdictions. (See Fields v. Kodiak City Council, 628 P.2d 927, 931 <br />(Alaska 1981) (zoning board's authority "is restricted to that provided by <br />the zoning ordinance and its enabling legislation" and, under that scheme, <br />board kicked authority to decide equitable questions of estoppel and <br />"clean hands'); Carini v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of West <br />Hartford, 164 Conn. 169, 319 A.2d 390, 393 (1972) (zoning board's func- <br />tion is not to consider matters such as estoppel or laches in determining <br />whether a variance should be granted); Bianco v. Town of Darien, 157 <br />Conn. 548, 254 A.2d 898, 901 (1969) (exhaustion of administrative reme- <br />dies is not required for an action seeking equitable relief because such <br />claims "are not susceptible of determination by a zoning board . . <br />composed of laymen but can only be resolved in a judicial proceeding'); <br />Forest County v. Goode, 219 Wis. 2d 654, 579 N. W.2d 715, 722 (1998) <br />(zoning board "has no equitable power'). But see Vaughn v. Zoning Hear- <br />ing Bd. of Tp. of Shaler, 947 A.2d 218, 223-24 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2008) <br />(Pa.Commw.Ct.2008) (zoning board had jurisdiction to grant a "variance <br />by estoppel').) <br />Case Note: <br />In its decision, the court distinguished claims of municipal estoppel that <br />were "essentially an appeal of a planning board determination" (which <br />would require exhaustion of administrative remedies), and a municipal <br />estoppel claim not predicated upon a contention that the board or compli- <br />ance officer erred (such as here) (which is actually a new claim for relief <br />and which the court held would not require the exhaustion of administra- <br />tive remedies). <br />Zoning News from Around the <br />Nation <br />CALIFORNIA <br />The City of San Clemente has been sued by a group seeking to <br />develop a homeless shelter. The group charges that a new city <br />ordinance "flouts a state mandate designed to facilitate shelters." <br />cc) 2015 Thomson Reuters 11 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.