My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/05/2016
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
2016
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/05/2016
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 10:25:25 AM
Creation date
5/11/2016 8:36:56 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
05/05/2016
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
190
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 April 10. 2016 I Volume 10 I Issue 7 <br />Noting that authority, here, the court found that Condition 14 which <br />created a way for the Commission to continuously amend the permit to <br />redress future Act 250 violations —exceeded the Commission's <br />authority. Moreover, said the court, Condition 14 also prevented final- <br />ity, "an integral part of the land use permitting process." <br />The court concluded, noting that, although the Amended Act 250 <br />Permit itself was unappealed and was therefore final and binding on the <br />parties, that did not make Condition 14 enforceable. Here, Condition 14 <br />did not "merely bind the parties to the terms of the amended permit; <br />rather, it [sought] to prospectively expand the Commission's authority <br />to include enforcement." The creation of this "prospective, extra - <br />statutory authority —rendered the condition unenforceable." <br />Case Note: <br />The court also noted that its decision did not affect the Association's right to <br />appeal the Comrnission's decisions generally or to seek permit amendments. <br />Here, however, the Association failed to timely appeal the permit (within 30 <br />days per the statute). Still, the Association could raise concerns about Strat- <br />ton's compliance with the permit conditions to the NRB or ANR. <br />Governmental Immunity County <br />seeks to construct jail in village, <br />but village zoning law bans jails <br />completely <br />County seeks determination that it is immune from <br />village zoning ban <br />Citation: County of Herkimer v. Village of Herkimer, 2016 WL <br />332033 (N.Y. Sup 2016) <br />NEW YORK (01/27/16) This case addressed the issue of whether a <br />county should be granted immunity from a village's zoning law in order <br />to build a new county jail where the village's zoning law bans cor- <br />rectional facilities from locating within the village's boundaries. <br />The Background/Facts: Under statutory law, each county in New <br />York State must maintain a county jail. The Herkimer County Jail <br />("HCJ") has been located within the Village of Herkimer (the "Vil- <br />lage") since 1834. Due to an increase in jail population, and overcrowd- <br />ing at the HCJ, as well as a "substantial lack of compliance" with build- <br />© 2016 Thomson Reuters 9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.