My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/02/2017
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
2017
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/02/2017
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 10:29:10 AM
Creation date
12/28/2017 8:56:54 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
11/02/2017
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.
/
208
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, 2017 I Volume 11 I Issue 14 <br />plied within two days of that order for a building permit for a permanent home <br />and subsequently built that permanent home and removed the mobile home. <br />The court also found that Komondy failed to demonstrate that the town <br />lacked a rational basis to issue the Cease & Desist Order. The Town simply <br />enforced zoning regulations that limited temporary mobile home placement <br />on property during permanent dwelling construction to six months. <br />Accordingly, the court concluded that "[n]o reasonable jury could conclude <br />that the differential treatment alleged was the product of irrationality or that <br />any of [Komondy's] alleged comparators were sufficiently `similarly situated' <br />for purposes of application and enforcement of the law under the Equal Protec- <br />tion Clause." <br />See also: Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 120 S. Ct. 1073, <br />145 L. Ed. 2d 1060, 30 Envtl. L. Rep. 20360 (2000). <br />See also: Gray v. Town of Easton., 115 F. Stipp. 3d 312 (D. Conn. 2015), <br />judgment aff'd, 669 Fed. Appx. 4 (2d Cir 2016). <br />Case Note: <br />Komondy had also sued Town officials, individually. The court said that "[i)n order to <br />bring a successfid § 1983 claim against an individual in his individual capacity, the <br />plaintiff 'must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant was person- <br />ally involved —that is, he directly participated —in the alleged constitutional <br />deprivations.' " The • court found that Komondy's claims failed to provide evidence <br />that the Town officials were "personally involved" in the alleged equal protection <br />violation. Further, the court found that the Town officials were entitled to qualified <br />inmutnity. <br />Zoning News from Aroundthe <br />Nation <br />MASSACHUSETTS <br />Senate Bill 81, now pending in the state Legislature, would, among other <br />things: "[r]equire towns to allow dense, multi -family, market rate develop- <br />ment as of right;" "[c]reate a program of certifying communities that will <br />encourage towns to establish policies to create more `workforce housing,' eco- <br />nomic growth, green development, and the like;" "[p]rovide benefits to 'certi- <br />fied communities,' including preferential consideration when providing State <br />discretionary funds for infrastructure maintenance and development;" <br />"[r]equire towns to create master plans, to update them on a regular basis, and <br />to coordinate them with neighboring towns and regional planning agencies;" <br />"[c]reate a new class of subsidized housing for middle -income residents;" <br />"[r]equire towns to allow accessory apartments in single family homes;" [a]1- <br />low the incorporation of transferable development rights into zoning by-laws;" <br />[s]implify the zoning variance and special permit processes;" "[m]ake the pro- <br />© 2017 Thomson Reuters 11 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.