My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/03/2016
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
2016
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/03/2016
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 10:25:03 AM
Creation date
4/5/2016 8:16:19 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
03/03/2016
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
88
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 25, 2016 1 Volume 10 1 Issue 2 <br />Here, the court found that although BBL reserved its right to contest the <br />City's secondary -effects justification later in litigation, it decided not to <br />contest them at the preliminary -injunction stage. The court found that fail- <br />ure to contest them at this stage was "fatal to [BBL's] effort to win interim <br />injunctive relief." Since the City had provided an "extensive catalog of <br />secondary -effects research that it claim[ed] justifie[d] the 2012 amend- <br />ments to its zoning and licensing ordinances, and BBL had not challenged <br />that, the remaining question in the test of ordinance validity was whether <br />the ordinances left open adequate "alternative avenues of communication," <br />and here, the court found that the City had identified "plenty of sites" where <br />an adult business could locate. That, found the court, was "enough to defeat <br />BBL's argument." <br />See also: City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., 475 U.S. 41, 106 S. <br />Ct. 925, 89 L. Ed. '2d 29, 12 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1721 (1986). <br />See also: City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, Inc., 535 U.S. 425, 122 <br />S. Ct. 1728, 152 L. Ed. 2d 670, 30 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1769 (2002). <br />Case Note: <br />BBL had also brought claims under state law, alleging that the ordinances violated <br />Indiana's nonconforming use doctrine. The Seventh Circuit similarly found that <br />BBL was unlikely to prevail on those claims and thus that BBL'S preliminary <br />injunction was properly denied. <br />Equal Protection—City denies <br />landowners request for special <br />exemption, citing noncompliance <br />with ordinance <br />Landowner claims denial violates his equal <br />protection and substantive due process rights <br />Citation: Johnson v. City of Canton, 2015 WL 7444388 (Miss. Ct. App. <br />2015) <br />MISSISSIPPI (11/24/15)—This case addressed the issue of whether a <br />landowner's equal protection rights and substantive due process rights <br />were violated by a city's denial of his request for a special exemption to <br />peuuit construction of a proposed home on a noncompliant lot. <br />The Background/Facts: In 2005, Paul Johnson ("Johnson") sought to <br />build a home on land he purchased behind his father's duplex in Canton <br />(the "City"). The City initially granted Johnson a building peuuit but later <br />issued a stop -work order when it learned that Johnson's lot had no access <br />© 2016 Thomson Reuters 7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.