My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/07/2004
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
2004
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/07/2004
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 9:34:23 AM
Creation date
10/1/2004 10:19:35 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
10/07/2004
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
184
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
<br />Page '-1- - AugusT 25, 2004 <br /> <br />Z.B. <br /> <br />The lower court foundiT would serve no useful purpose to review the pro- <br />ce~dings approving the superseded 2002 ordinance and that the 2003 plan was <br />not the subject of the attack. <br />However, one issue did remain. The conditional use approved for the height <br />var1J.nce had not been addressed by the 2003 ordinance and remained viabie <br />under the 2002 ordinance. Ultim~l[ely, the court dismissed the case. <br />N annie Lee' s appealed. <br />DECISION: Reversed. <br />The lower court misapplied the law in dismissing the suit in its entirety. <br />The conditional use height variance, which was approved by the 20Q2 or- <br />dinance, was not affected by the 2003 ordinance, which only approved a new <br />site plan. <br />Not all of the arguments were related solely to the original site plan that <br />was superseded by the subsequent site plan. . <br />Although Nannie Lee's raised only minor issues conceming the propriety <br />of the height variance, those issues had not yet been addressed. Consequendy, <br />the lower court could not dismiss the petiTion as moot when those issues were <br />still pending. <br />see also: FirsT Bapcist Church of Perrine v. jyJiami-Dade Cmmry, 768 So.2d <br />1114 (2000). <br />see also: Miami-Dade Counry v. Omnipoint Holdings Inc., 863 So.2d 195 <br />(2003 ). <br /> <br />Appeal - Appeal filed one day later than legal period <br />Otherwise would have inclu.ded ,'vI emorial Day <br />Citacion: Nine Scare Street LLC v. Planning and Zoning Commission of the <br />Ciry of Bridgepon. Supreme Cmm of Connecricuc, No. SC 17110 (2004) <br />CONi'fECTICUT (07/06/04) - Nine State Street LLC applied to the Planning <br />and Zoning Commission of the City of Bridgeport for a special permit to con- <br />struct and oper:.He an asphalt production facility. <br />The commission ultimarely denied the request. Sixteen days later, the day <br />aher Memorial Day, Nine State served an appeal upon the chairman, clerk of <br />the commission, and the city clerk. <br />However, because process was nO( served within i5 days of the decision <br />as required by local law, the commission dismissed the appeal. <br />Nine State sueci. ~lDd the COllrt ruled in favor of the commission. <br />Nine State appealed, arguing mcluding Memorial Day within the lS-day <br />[irne [C) file violated its right [0 appeal. <br /> <br />DECISION: Reversed. <br /> <br />BecaUSe Lhe t)(h :jay feU l)[l J. t~gaI boiiday, Service l)f process GO the 16th <br />d:J.Y '2~)nSIl[U[ed sutficlcQr compli2-Qce './vlch [be sta(u[e. <br /> <br />100 <br /> <br />~: 2r::;CJ. ,-:uinI2fl '='JOllsniog -_~fcu6. ':;_n:1 -earoGuc:ion '3 :JrCnIOlfeo. ;::or :\10r2 :nrcrmal]Cn _~!e3Sa ~-~3i1 6'! 7\:~2.;)048. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.