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
October 25, 20151 Volume 91 Issue 20 Zoning Bulletin <br />See also: People v. Long Island Railroad, 90 Misc.2d 269, 397 N.Y.S.2d <br />846 (App Term, 2nd Dept. 1976). <br />See also: Tang v. New York City Transit Authority, 55 A.D.3d 720, 867 <br />N. Y. S.2d 453 (2d Dept. 2008). <br />See also: Terranova v. New York City Transit Auth., 49 A.D.3d 10, 15, <br />850 N.. Y. S.2d 123 (2d Dept. 2007). <br />See also: Echevarria v. New York City Transit Authority, 45 A.D.3d 492, <br />847N.Y.S.2d 38 (IstDept. 2007). <br />See also: Metro. Transp. Auth. v. City of New York, 70 A.D.2d 551, 416 <br />N.Y.S.2d 612 (IstDept.), lv denied 48 N.Y. 607 (1979). <br />Case Note: <br />The OACs had urged the court to declare that every outdoor sign on all MTA prop- <br />erty is exempt from local law and regulations. The court refused, noting that Public <br />Authorities Law § 1266(8) does not exempt from local law and regulations 'facilities <br />that are devoted to purposes other than transportation or transit purposes. " Here, <br />on the record before it, the court could not find, as a matter of law, that there were <br />no facilities that existed that were "devoted to purposes other than transportation or <br />transit purposes"; neither could the court find, as a matter of law, that every MTA <br />facility with an outdoor sign was devoted to a transportation or transit purpose. <br />Jurisdiction/Authority—Intervenor in <br />zoning appeal claims proposed <br />development would result in <br />environmental resource damage <br />Court enjoins development, and developer claims <br />state Environmental Protection Act does not give <br />court authority to enter an injunction in the <br />context of a zoning appeal. <br />Citation: Hunter Ridge, LLC v. Planning and Zoning Commission of Town <br />ofNewtown, 318 Conn. 431 (Sept. 1, 2015) <br />CONNECTICUT (09/01/15)—This case addressed the issue of whether <br />Connecticut's Environmental Protection Act of 1971—Conn. Gen. Stat. <br />§§ 22a-18 and 22a-19—empowers or allows a trial court to enter an injunc- <br />tion in an administrative appeal of a zoning decision brought pursuant to <br />§ 8-8 in which an individual has intervened pursuant to § 22a-19. <br />The Background/Facts: Seeking to develop a parcel of land, Hunter <br />Ridge, LLC ("Hunter Ridge") applied for a subdivision permit from the <br />8 © 2015 Thomson Reuters <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.