My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/02/2018
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
2018
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/02/2018
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 10:31:31 AM
Creation date
8/30/2018 3:58:34 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
08/02/2018
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.
/
329
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
June 15, 2018 I Volume 12 I Issue 12 Zoning Bulletin <br />`destroyed,' not just `damaged' or `partially destroyed' " because the <br />entire advertising surface had blown off of the support posts and was <br />replaced in its entirety. <br />See also: Viacom Outdoor, Inc. v. City of Arcata, 140 Cal. App. 4th <br />230, 44 Cal. Rptr. 3d 300 (1st Dist. 2006). <br />Case Note: <br />Lamar had also cited OAA section 2271, which provides that a billboard is <br />"destroyed and not eligible for customary maintenance" when it remains <br />unrepaired for more than 60 days after notice of its damage. Lamar argued <br />that its billboard was not "destroyed" because it was repaired within 60 days, <br />and therefore the reconstruction was not a "placement," but only customary <br />maintenance. The court rejected this argument, finding OAA section 2271 cre- <br />ated a limited exception to an owner's right to conduct customary mainte- <br />nance and defined when an owner would forfeit the right of customary mainte- <br />nance and the loss of a CalTrans permit. It did not, found the court, define the <br />term "destroyed" for all purposes, and did not address the County's require- <br />ment that Lamar apply for a permit prior to rebuilding the billboard. <br />Injunction —Resident constructs <br />garage that encroaches on zoning <br />setback area and county right-of- <br />way abutting a road <br />County seeks permanent injunction, requiring <br />resident to remove garage <br />Citation: County of Boone v. Reynolds, 2018 WL 1597632 (Mo. Ct. <br />App. W.D. 2018), reh'g and/or transfer denied, (May 1, 2018) <br />MISSOURI (04/03/18)—This case addressed the issue of whether a <br />County was entitled to a permanent injunction, requiring a resident to <br />remove a newly constructed garage. <br />The Background/Facts: Sometime before June 21, 2013, Seth <br />Reynolds ("Reynolds") began construction on a detached garage near <br />his home in Boone County (the "County"). The garage measured forty - <br />by -forty feet and sat approximately eighteen -to -twenty feet off of the <br />edge of a County paved road. Reynolds first started the garage construc- <br />tion without first obtaining a building permit. However, after installing <br />8 © 2018 Thomson Reuters <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.