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
Zoning Bulletin December 25, 2016 I Volume 10 I Issue 24 <br />Use Overlay Districts "were unreasonable and inconsistent with the <br />stated purpose of those districts." In other words, the court found that <br />while the Ordinance placed "intensive restrictions on the manner in <br />which apartments are developed," those restrictions were "not shown <br />to be unreasonable and unrelated to public health, safety, morals and <br />general welfare." The court concluded that the Ordinance was not de <br />jure or de facto exclusionary because the Township had provided for its <br />fair share of apartment housing and had not used other restrictions <br />within the Ordinance to render the development of apartments an il- <br />lusory or economically infeasible prospect. Therefore, the court held <br />that the Developers' challenge to the Ordinance as unconstitutionally <br />restrictive of the development of apartments was "without merit." <br />See also: Surrick v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Upper Providence Tp., <br />476 Pa. 182, 382 A.2d 105 (1977). <br />See also: Stahl v. Upper Southampton Tp. Zoning Hearing Bd., 146 <br />Pa. Commw. 659, 606A.2d 960 (1992). <br />Case Note: <br />The court made clear that its holding was based on the evidence presented in <br />support of the Developers' request for a curative amendment to construct <br />apartments within the OP District, "rather than the Ordinance as applied to a <br />property within the area zoned for apartment use, and on the evidence of the <br />growth and development of the Township as currently reflected in the record." <br />Zoning News from Around the <br />Nation <br />CALIFORNIA <br />In the wake of the passage of the Adult Use Marijuana Act, the City <br />of San Francisco is considering legislation to "establish interim zoning <br />controls for the growing of marijuana." "The legislation would require <br />a conditional use authorization for indoor agriculture uses, which <br />would include the commercial cultivation of cannabis in Production, <br />Distribution, and Repair (PDR) districts citywide." <br />Source: San Francisco Examiner; wwwsfexaminer:com <br />CALIFORNIA <br />In response to "mini dorms" that have popped up in the city, San Di- <br />ego city leaders passed a new zoning ordinance that limits the number <br />©2016 Thomson Reuters 11 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.