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 September 25, 2017 I Volume 11 I Issue 18 <br />commercial viability as compared to `other property of the same clas- <br />sification in the same zoning district,' " found the court. Importantly, in <br />disagreement with the court of appeals, the court also found that those <br />special circumstances "arose from factors beyond Jachimek's control." <br />It was the City's eminent domain action, not Jachimek's intended use, <br />that altered the Property's dimensions and created the special circum- <br />stances, found the court. <br />In so finding, the court emphasized that "Arizona zoning statutes <br />and local ordinances require boards of adjustment to consider special <br />circumstances applicable to the property, not the property owner." <br />Here, noted the court, Jachimek's proposed use was permissible and <br />the area variance would not alter the character of the neighborhood. <br />Accordingly, the court held that "an applicant or owner's selection of a <br />property, even with knowledge that an area variance is required for an <br />intended use allowed on other similarly zoned properties, does not <br />itself constitute a self-imposed special circumstance precluding an area <br />variance." <br />See also: Rivera v. City of Phoenix, 186 Ariz. 600, 925 P.2d 741 (Ct. <br />App. Div. 1 1996) (denying area variance where owner created the <br />special circumstance). <br />Zoning News from Around the <br />Nation <br />MICHIGAN <br />The state Legislature is considering Senate Bill329 and House Bill <br />4503, which would amend the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act. The <br />bills would prohibit municipalities from: defining a property renting <br />for less than 28 days as a commercial use; and restricting short -teen <br />rentals in residential districts. In other words, the proposed legislation <br />would prohibit municipalities from banning short-term rentals in a <br />community. <br />Source: Petoskey News -Review; www.vetoskevnews.com <br />NEW HAMPSHIRE <br />Governor Chris Sununu has vetoed House Bill 86, which would have <br />set statewide standards for votes on zoning variances. "Current law <br />requires variances meet a five[ -]point test, including whether the proj- <br />ect serves the public interest. Some cities and towns hold separate votes <br />on each requirement, others don't. House bill 86 would have mandated <br />discrete votes on all five criteria." The state Legislature could override <br />© 2017 Thomson Reuters 11 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.