My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/07/2013
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
2013
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/07/2013
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 10:18:35 AM
Creation date
4/25/2024 2:18:33 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
11/07/2013
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.
/
353
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
October 10, 2013 I Volume 7 I Issue 19 <br />Zoning Bulletin <br />Additionally, the court concluded that there existed a reasonable <br />alternative avenue in which Peterson could operate an adult entertain- <br />ment business despite the zoning ordinances: in the surrounding areas <br />of Lyon County. The court explained that the United States Supreme <br />Court "has left open the question whether, at least in the case of small <br />municipalities, opportunities to engage in the restricted speech in <br />neighboring communities may be relevant to determining the existence <br />of adequate alternative channels." Here, Peterson's own expert had <br />stated that 204.26 (or 32.22%) of the total acres zoned for commercial <br />use in Lyon County were available for adult entertainment uses. The <br />court found that this availability would provide Peterson with a reason- <br />able alternative for operating an adult entertainment business in the <br />county. <br />Accordingly, the court held that the zoning ordinances in question <br />did not violate Peterson's constitutional rights relating to the operation <br />of his adult entertainment business. <br />See also: Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 109 S. Ct. <br />2746, 105 L. Ed. 2d 661 (1989). <br />See also: Schad v. Borough of Mount Ephraim, 452 U.S. 61, 101 S. <br />Ct. 2176, 68 L. Ed. 2d 671, 7 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1426 (1981). <br />See also: Alexander v. City of Minneapolis, 928 F.2d 278, 18 Media <br />L. Rep. (BNA) 2344 (8th Cir. 1991). <br />Open Meetings Neighborhood <br />Planning Committee holds <br />meetings in private residences <br />and uses password -protected <br />Web Site message board <br />Landowners contend planning committee <br />violated open meetings laws, which <br />warranted a voiding of the final <br />neighborhood plan <br />Citation: Allen v. Lakeside Neighborhood Planning Committee, 2013 <br />MT 237, 2013 WL 4434251 (Mont. 2013) <br />MONTANA (08/20/13)—This case addressed the issues of whether <br />a neighborhood planning committee's violation of open meetings laws <br />warranted the voiding of the committee's neighborhood plan and/or the <br />8 © 2013 Thomson Reuters <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.