My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/03/2016
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
2016
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/03/2016
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 10:26:06 AM
Creation date
3/14/2017 12:19:02 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
11/03/2016
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
105
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 September 10, 2016 Volume 10 Issue' 17 <br /> determined that the Club's failure to appeal from the terms of the cer- <br /> tificate of nonconformance here only resulted in a "procedural disad- <br /> vantage and not in a restriction or limitation of[its] constitutionally <br /> protected property right [to continue its legally nonconforming use]." <br /> Thus,the court concluded that the Board had failed to recognize that <br /> the Club's preexisting lawful use of the property for Sunday go-cart <br /> Q racing was entitled to constitutionalprotection. The certificate of <br /> nonconformance had,noted the court,"on its face deprived the Club of <br /> the lawful nonconforming use of the property on Sundays." Accord- <br /> ingly, the court held that the Board erred in determining that the Club <br /> was not permitted to hold any races on Sunday. The court remanded <br /> the matter to the trial court for farther proceedings, which, noted the <br /> court,may include farther remand to the Board. <br /> See also:Nettleton v. Zoning Bd. ofAdjustrnent of City of Pittsburgh, <br /> 574 Pa. 45, 828,4.2d 1033 (2003). <br /> See also: Slusser v. Black Creek Tp. Zoning Hearing Bd., 124 A.3d <br /> 771 (Pa. Cornrnw. Ct. 2015). <br /> Conditional Use Permit—Landowner <br /> is Granted Conditional Use Permit for <br /> One Use Comprising Multiple <br /> Operations <br /> When landowner fails to timely implement <br /> c; <br /> one of the multiple operations, township <br /> says permit is void <br /> Citation: Southside Environmental Group, LLC. v. Weathersfield <br /> Twp. Bd. of Trustees, 2016-Ohio-4739, 2016 WL 3577905 (Ohio Ct. <br /> App. 11th Dist. Tr unibull County 2016) <br /> OHIO (06/30/16)—This case addressed the issue of whether failure <br /> p to implement one of several operations authorized under a conditional <br /> ll use permit voids the permit. <br /> f <br /> The Background/Facts: Southside Environmental Group, LLC <br /> ("Southside") owned 12 acres of land in Weathersfield Township (the <br /> "Township").In June 2012,Southside, along with Kurtz Brothers,Inc., <br /> filed an application for a conditional use permit ("CUP") to allow <br /> operation of a "Class IV Composting Facility and Construction and <br /> Demolition Debris Recycling Facility" on Southside's property. The <br /> ©2016 Thomson Reuters 7 <br /> G <br /> c' <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.