My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/12/2018
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
2018
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/12/2018
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 10:31:20 AM
Creation date
8/23/2018 4:33:29 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
07/12/2018
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
117
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 June 10, 2018 I Volume 12 I Issue 11 <br />access the remedies of Protest Petition Statute (as the statute allowed the rem- <br />edy only by property owners within a certain proximity to the proposed <br />rezoning). Thus, the court concluded that they Byrons, as parties not subject to <br />or able to avail themselves of the Protest Petition Statute, were not "directly <br />and adversely affected" by the unavailability of a statutory procedure they <br />were never entitled to enjoy in the fast instance —and therefore did not have <br />standing to bring their claim interpreting the language "initiated on" in Ses- <br />sion Law 2015-160. <br />The court further held that the Byrons did not have standing to bring their <br />constitutional claims. The court found that the Byrons claims were solely as <br />persons with a "general interest as . . . citizen[s] in good government in ac- <br />cordance with the provisions of the Constitution[,]" rather than as those "who <br />[are] in immediate danger of sustaining a direct injury." <br />See also: Wake Cares, Inc. v. Wake County Bd. of Educ., 190 N.C. App. 1, <br />660 S.E.2d 217, 231 Ed. Law Rep. 951 (2008), decision aff'd, 363 N.C. 165, <br />675 S.E.2d 345 (2009). <br />See also: Charles Stores. Co. v. Tucker;; 263 N.C. 710, 140 S.E.2d 370 (1965). <br />Zoning News from Around the <br />Nation <br />CONNECTICUT <br />The state's General Assembly recently passed House Bill 5515, "which <br />would empower local zoning commissions throughout the state to regulate the <br />brightness and illumination of advertising signs and billboards." The bill <br />exempts from such regulations signs that do no have the technological capabil- <br />ity to have brightness adjusted. The bill next goes to the state Senate for <br />consideration. <br />Source: New Haven Independent; www.newhavenindevendent.org <br />LOUISIANA <br />The Louisiana House Municipal Affairs Committee recently voted to "ap- <br />prove a ban that would forbid local governments from requiring developers to <br />include affordable housing in new developments." Municipalities could still <br />provide incentives to developers to encourage the building of affordable <br />housing. Opponents of the bill included City of New Orleans officials, while <br />proponents of the bill included the Home Builders Association of Greater New <br />Orleans. <br />Source: The Times -Picayune; www.nola.com <br />PENNSYLVANIA <br />In late April, the Philadelphia Planning Commission put a 45-day hold on <br />City Council legislation "intended to overhaul community notification require- <br />ments about zoning changes." The proposed regulation would, among other <br />© 2018 Thomson Reuters 11 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.