My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/03/2019
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
2019
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/03/2019
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 10:33:31 AM
Creation date
1/22/2019 9:58:34 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
01/03/2019
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
67
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 November 25, 2018 I Volume 12 I Issue 22 <br />to allege that they had been "intentionally treated differently from others <br />similarly situated and that there was no rational basis for the differential <br />treatment." Although the Developers had claimed that their development <br />plan application was treated differently from the application of Cooper <br />Carwash, the court found that: (1) Cooper Carwash was not similarly situ- <br />ated given different lot sizes, different surrounding areas, different total <br />uses, and different opposition; and (2) even if it was similarly situated, the <br />City had a rational basis for the differential treatment —namely to "provide <br />development which enhances neighborhood areas" (one of the purposes of <br />the City ordinances). <br />See also: Town of Castle Rock, Colo. v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748, 125 S. <br />Ct. 2796, 162 L. Ed. 2d 658 (2005). <br />See also: Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 120 S. Ct. 1073, <br />145 L. Ed. 2d 1060, 30 Envtl. L. Rep. 20360 (2000). <br />Case Note: <br />Da Vinci had also brought a takings claim against the City. On appeal, the Fifth <br />Circuit rejected that claim. The court held that although the value of Da Vinci's <br />property was "undoubtedly reduced by the denial of its development plan applica- <br />tion, the zoning and allowable uses of the property never changed." The property <br />could still be developed for commercial use —and thus, any reasonably held <br />investment -backed expectations were not affected by the City enforcing restrictions <br />in place when such investments were made, said the court. <br />Use/Short-term Rentals— <br />Neighbors argue landowner's <br />short-term rental of cabin is an <br />unpermitted zoning use <br />Landowner points to fact that ordinance does not <br />prohibit short-term rentals, and claims his use <br />constitutes a permitted "single[ -]family detached <br />dwelling" use <br />Citation: Leinberger v. Stellar as Trustee of Deborah E. Stellar Revocable <br />Trust, 2018 WL 4924786 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2018) <br />PENNSYLVANIA (10/11/18)—This case addressed the issue of whether <br />a landowner's short-term rental of his cabin was an unpermitted zoning use <br />in violation of the township's zoning ordinance. <br />The Background/Facts: Anthony G. Stellar, Trustee of the Deborah E. <br />© 2018 Thomson Reuters 9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.