My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/01/2016
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
2016
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/01/2016
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 10:25:52 AM
Creation date
8/30/2016 11:33:27 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
09/01/2016
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.
/
414
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 July 25, 2016 Volume 10 Issue 14 <br /> delegated that task of interpretation and enforcement. The court found <br /> that "[n]either the [T]own [M]eeting (whose role is to enact the zoning <br /> bylaw and then leave it to the building inspector, the zoning board, and <br /> ultimately the courts to interpret and enforce its provisions),nor the [A]d- <br /> visory[L]and[U]se[C]oimnittee(which has only an advisory role inland <br /> use matters),"had a part in that process.Nor,did the Plamling Board have <br /> a part in the process in this instance,said the court. Ii <br /> See also: Harvard Square Defense Fiend, Inc. v. Planning Bd. of <br /> Canibridge, 27 Mass.App. Ct. 491, 540 N.E.2d 182 (1989). <br /> Procedure—Planning and Zoning I' <br /> Commission Waives Compliance <br /> with Procedural Requirements for <br /> Zoning Petition, Noting All Parties l <br /> Benefitted From Application of <br /> "Easier Standards" <br /> Opponents of zoning petition say waiver of <br /> procedural requirements was arbitrary <br /> Citation:Martinell v.Board of County Con2'm of Carbon County, 2016 <br /> MT 136, 2016 WL 3172388 (Mont. 2016) <br /> MONTANA (06/07/16)—This case addressed the issue of whether <br /> board of county commissioners acted arbitrarily in waiving compliance <br /> with zoning requirements, even though the board concluded that all par- <br /> ties benefitted from"easier standards applied." <br /> The Background/Facts: Under Montana statutory law, § 76-2-101 <br /> MCA, "whenever the public interest or convenience may require and <br /> upon petition of 60% of the affected real property owners in the proposed <br /> district, the board of county commissioners may create a planning and <br /> zoning district and appoint a planning and zoning commission consisting <br /> of seven members." This is known as a"Part 1"zoning petition. Section <br /> 76-2-101, MCA establishes the statutory procedure for such property <br /> owner-initiated zoning. Carbon County (the "County"), under a resolu- <br /> tion ("Resolution 2009-16") established "the approved process for the <br /> certification of`Part [1]' zoning petitions [in the County]." Resolution <br /> 2009-16 includes specific substantive and procedural requirements for a <br /> "Part 1"zoning petition. <br /> In November 2014,a group of private landowners(the"Silvertip Land- <br /> owners") initiated a petition to establish such a "Part 1" zoning district. <br /> 2016 Thomson Reuters 7 <br /> i <br /> 4 <br /> I <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.