My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/02/2017
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
2017
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/02/2017
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 10:27:24 AM
Creation date
3/14/2017 1:32:59 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
02/02/2017
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.
/
382
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
December 25, 2016 I Volume 10 I Issue 24 Zoning Bulletin <br />board of county commissioners." The court noted that a board of adjust- <br />ment does not possess "unconfined and unrestrained freedom of ac- <br />tion" to "depart from a comprehensive plan." Thus, the court found <br />that a board of adjustment's authority to deny an application did not <br />give it power to determine whether a permitted special use is a use ben- <br />eficial to the community. Rather, said the court, that decision had been <br />made by the County zoning ordinance in its allowance of the operation <br />of the wind turbines as part of the comprehensive plan. In other words, <br />the Board's power to deny the CUP here could only be based on facts <br />concerning special or conditional use permits. Here, the County's Wind <br />Energy, Ordinance allowed wind turbines, so the use of turbines in the <br />area and their affect on the "general welfare" of citizens was not an is- <br />sue (as that "issue" had already been decided in the decision to allow <br />them per the ordinance); rather, the issue for the Board was whether <br />Mustang's operation of the wind turbines would meet certain <br />conditions. <br />Finally, the court also concluded that the trial judge's findings, based <br />upon application of the County zoning ordinances and an assessment <br />of the reasonableness of Mustang's application as well as objections to <br />the wind turbine project, was "not against the clear weight of the <br />evidence." <br />Signs and Billboards Finding <br />billboard does not comply .with <br />county code, city orders its <br />removal <br />Billboard owners contends state law preempts <br />county code with regard to their billboard <br />Citation: D'Egidio v. City of Santa Clarita, 4 Cal. App. 5th 515, <br />2016 WL 6208627 (2d Dist. 2016) <br />CALIFORNIA (10/24/16)—This case addressed the issue of whether <br />Section 5270 of California's Outdoor Advertising Act —which provides <br />that the Act "shall be exclusive of all other regulations for the placing <br />of advertising displays within view of the public highways of [Califor- <br />nia] in unincorporated areas . . .."—precluded application of county <br />or city billboard ordinances with respect to a billboard that was placed <br />in an area that was unincorporated at the time of its placement. <br />The Background/Facts: In 1984, members of the D'Egidio family <br />4 © 2016 Thomson Reuters <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.