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
Zoning Bulletin September 25, 2018 I Volume 12 I issue 18 <br />welfare, or any condition that is materially reducing the value of the <br />property." (N.J.S.A. 54:5-86(c).) Thus, the court concluded that Linden <br />587 met the MLUL's definition of "interested party." <br />That conclusion, however, noted the court, was not in and of itself <br />determinative of standing. Not every tax lienholder automatically has <br />standing to challenge a land use application, said the court. Rather, <br />again, the court emphasized that to have standing pursuant to the <br />MLUL, an "interested party," including a tax lienholder like Linden <br />587, must show that its "right to use, acquire, or enjoy property is or <br />may be affected" by the action. (N.J.S.A. 40:55D-4.) Here, the court <br />found that Cherokee and Linden 587 had alleged that Goodman's <br />proposed project would affect their right to enter onto the property to <br />address certain conditions because of the project's elimination of <br />certain points of access to the Neighboring Property, the interference <br />with an existing easement on the Property, and the modification of <br />stone water management on the Property. <br />Thus, the court concluded that Linden 587 "may have standing as <br />the holder of tax sale certificates for the Neighboring Property whose <br />`right to use . . . [the] property . . . may be affected' if [Goodman's] <br />application is granted." <br />Zoning News from Around the <br />Nation <br />CALIFORNIA <br />The state Legislature is considering Assembly Bill 2923, which, as <br />introduced, would authorize the Bay Area Rapid Transit ("BART") "to <br />ignore local zoning rules, create its own building standards and require <br />that cities conform to BART's development plans for any of its proper- <br />ties within a half -mile of a station." Reportedly, the bill is aimed at <br />increasing opportunities for high density "transit villages" near BART <br />stations. <br />Source: KPJX; hops://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com <br />MASSACHUSETTS <br />Boston City Councilors have filed legislation "to remove as -of -right <br />designations for chain stores in Boston's neighborhood business <br />districts." The proposal would reportedly amend the City of Boston's <br />Zoning Code "to regulate formula retail uses, also known as chain <br />stores, and require a conditional use permit for any such business to <br />open and operate in a neighborhood business district." Under the pro- <br />© 2018 Thomson Reuters 11 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.