My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/01/2018
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
2018
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/01/2018
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 10:32:00 AM
Creation date
1/11/2019 10:20:52 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
11/01/2018
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
148
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
September 25, 2018 I Volume 12 I Issue 18 Zoning Bulletin <br />§ 8-2, did not intend to "cast such a broad net" as proposed by the ZFO. <br />If the legislature had so intended, noted the court, the legislature would <br />have simply granted a municipality the authority to regulate "signs." <br />Accordingly, the court concluded that although signs like Arisian's <br />made a "public announcement" and "could be a distraction to drivers <br />and could raise safety concerns if . . . too big, too tall, or placed in <br />certain locations," the court was "hard pressed to characterize such <br />signs as advertising." Moreover, the court noted that, "[t]o the extent <br />that such signs may give rise to similar aesthetic and safety concerns as <br />advertising signs," it was not up to the court to give the statute a broader <br />meaning than the contemporaneous, common meaning intended by the <br />enacting legislature. <br />See also: Burns v. Barrett, 212 Conn. 176, 189, 561 A.2d 1378 <br />(1989). <br />Standing —Tax lienholder of <br />property challenges local planning <br />board approval of land use <br />application for neighboring <br />property <br />Land use applicant argues tax lienholder is not <br />an "interested party" and therefore Tacks standing <br />under state statute to bring the challenge <br />Citation: Cherokee LCP Land, LLC v. City of Linden Planning <br />Board, 2018 WL 3650226 (N.J. 2018) <br />NEW JERSEY (08/02/18)—This case addressed the issue of whether <br />a tax lienholder has standing to challenge a planning board's approval <br />of a land use application for a neighboring property. <br />The Background/Facts: A predecessor of GAF Corporation <br />("GAF") acquired and subsequently subdivided a property in the City <br />of Linden (the "City") into two parcels of land. GAF retained owner- <br />ship of one parcel (the "Property"), and sold the other parcel (the <br />"Neighboring Property") to Linden Chlorine Products, Inc. GAF then <br />transferred the Property to Linden Property Holding, LLC ("LPH"), <br />which entered into a purchase and sale agreement with Goodman North <br />American Partnership Holdings, LLC ("Goodman"). The purchase and <br />8 © 2018 Thomson Reuters <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.