My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/12/2015
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
2015
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/12/2015
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 10:23:53 AM
Creation date
12/16/2015 11:03:11 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
11/12/2015
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
145
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 25, 2015 1 Volume 9 1 Issue 20 <br />"conflict with the general purpose of [the Township's zoning ordinance." <br />The court found that Inflection also met that burden. The zoning ordinance <br />expressly authorized the extraction of minerals. <br />See also: MarkWest Liberty Midstream & Resources, LLC v. Cecil Tp. <br />Zoning Hearing Bd., 102 A.3d 549 (Pa. Comm. Ct. 2014), appeal denied, <br />113 A.3d 281 (Pa. 2015). <br />Case Note: <br />In its holding, the appellate court noted that the trial court had focused on noise and <br />compatibility of truck deliveries during the construction phase of the natural well <br />development project. The appellate court said that focus was in error because <br />"[zJoning regulates the use of land and not the particulars of development and <br />construction." <br />Preemption City rejects outdoor <br />advertising sign registrations for <br />signs on metropolitan transportation <br />authority property <br />Outdoor advertising companies challenge city <br />jurisdiction over signs, arguing state law <br />preempts local law as to signs on such property <br />Citation: CBS Outdoor, Inc. v. City of New York, 16 N.Y.S.3d 411 (Sup <br />2015) <br />NEW YORK (09/08/15)—This case addressed the issue of whether Met- <br />ropolitan Transportation Authority facilities were exempt, under the Public <br />Authorities Law, from local laws restricting the placement of outdoor <br />advertising signs. The case also addressed whether local zoning laws were <br />preempted under the federal Interstate Commerce Commission Termination <br />Act of 1995 ("ICCTA")—which preempts all local laws managing or <br />governing rail transportation. <br />The Background/Facts: CBS Outdoor, Inc. ("CBS Outdoor"), Lamar <br />Advertising of Penn, LLC ("Lamar"), and Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. <br />("Clear Channel") (collectively, the "Outdoor Advertising Companies" or <br />"OACs") are each engaged in the business of outdoor advertising. The City <br />of New York (the "City") regulates outdoor advertising under its zoning <br />laws. The City's Building Code requires outdoor advertising companies to <br />register with the City's Department of Buildings ("DOB"), and to provide <br />DOB with an inventory of their outdoor advertising signs, sign structures, <br />and sign locations that are within 900 feet and within view of an arterial <br />highway. <br />© 2015 Thomson Reuters 5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.