Laserfiche WebLink
z.g. <br /> <br />May 10, 2006 ~Page 5 <br /> <br />to stores with more than 50,000 square feet was arbitrary. Arational relationship <br />between the size classification and the goal of protecting the downtown mer- <br />chants simply did not exist. <br />see also: Elysium Institute Inc. v. County of Los Angeles, 232 Cal. App.3d 408 <br />(1991). <br />see also: Friends of Davis v. City of Davis, 83 Cal. App.4th 1004 (2000). <br /> <br /> Tribal Lands -- Tribe seeks immunity from zoning laws <br /> Wants to retain complete sovereignty over area <br />Citation: The Seneca-Cayuse Tribe of Oklahoma v. Town of Aurelius, U.S. <br />District Court for the Northern District of New York, No. 5:03-CV-00690 <br />(2006) " <br />NEW YORK (02/14/06) -- The Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma sought a <br />declaration that certain property within the Town of Aurelius, N.Y., was Indian <br />Country within the definition of United States law. At the same time, the tribe <br />filed suit against Aurelius, seeking a declaration that the town could not en- <br />force its zoning and land use laws on any tribal property. <br />DECISION: Judgment in favor of the tom. <br /> Here, impossibility barred the tribe from asserting immunity from state and <br />local zoning laws and regulations for its land. <br /> Avoiding compliance with local zoning and land use laws was disruptive. <br />Given the state's strong interest in zoning its land without exception for a small <br />number of Indian-held properties likely arranged in a checkerboard fashion, the <br />balance of interests obviously supported retaining state jurisdiction. <br /> Ultimately, the tribe's request for immunity from state and local zoning laws <br />and regulations was too disruptive to the everyday administration of state and <br />local government. <br />see also: City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation, 544 U.S. 197 (2005). <br />see also: Cayuga Indian Nation of New York v.'Pataki, 413 F. 3d 266 (2005). <br /> <br />Nonconforming Use m Landowner excavates topsoil before passage of <br />zoning ordinance <br />Township claims landowner's actions not enough tO support prior <br />nonconforming use ~ <br />Citation: Swan Creek Township v. Wylie & Sons Landscaping, Co~trt of Appeais <br />of Ohio, 6th App. Dist., Fulton Co., No. F-05-005 (2,006) <br />OHIO (02/10/06) --Wylie & Sons Landscaping (Wylie) mined, excavated, and <br />sold topsoil and sand. Because of noise concerns, a neighborhood group con- <br />vinced the Swan Creek Township to pass a zoning ordinance that precluded <br />mining or excavating. <br /> <br />© 2006 Quinlan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048. <br /> <br />77 <br /> <br /> <br />