My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/04/2007
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
2007
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/04/2007
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 9:41:12 AM
Creation date
12/29/2006 3:47:24 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
01/04/2007
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.
/
231
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
<br />( <br /> <br />Z.B. <br /> <br />Special I~sue: Biweekly Edition - Page 3 <br /> <br />Since the township permitted mo]Jile hOrP-eson-any residential lot, there <br />was no express exclusion of mobile hoxpes asja. class'; Although Bailey argued <br />the township effectively excluded a certain supclass of mobile homes, namely, <br />those built before the current BUD regulation,s, amunicipality did not have to <br />permit all mobile homes regardless of size, ~ppearance, or quality. In fact, a <br />mobile home could be legally excluded if it failed to satisfy reasonable stan- <br />dards designed to assure favorable COtllparisom. of mobile homes with site-built <br />housing. <br />Here, the court determined the ordinance had a rational relationship to <br />safety. Construction standards had ir:nproved since 'the time Bailey's mobile <br />home was built, and the ordinance exempted mobile homes that were already <br />situated in the township. Since Bailey's mobile home did not comply with <br />current safety standards, the ordinance did 1'10t violate Bailey's due process <br />rights. <br />see also: Konynenbelt v. Flagstar Bank, 617N. W.2d 706 (2000). <br />see also: Landon Holdings Inc. v. Grattan TQwnship~ 667 N.W.2d 93 (2003). <br /> <br />" <br />f <br />~, <br /> <br />City erects barricades blocking Dairy Quee:Q. drivethru <br />Affords no hearing to Dairy Queen owner <br />Citation: Warren v. City of Athens, 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 03- <br />3580 <br />The 6th U.S. Circuit has jurisdiction' over Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and <br />Tennessee. <br /> <br />OHIO - Since 1981, Warren had owned a Pairy Queen on an intersection, <br />abutting a public road. There had beeha Dairy Queen in that location for over <br />50 years. '. . <br />In 1998, Warren decided to construct a "drive-thru" lane for the business. <br />When it opened in 1999, drive thrucustomers made up almost half of the <br />business. <br />Three years later, the city decidedithedrivethru was a traffic hazard. It then <br />placed barricades blocking off the drive thru. (Because of the barricades, refuse <br />trucks could not pick up trash, recycling, an9waste grease at the back of the <br />restaurant. Warren experienced a 22 percent drop in sales. <br />Warren sued, claiming the city was violttting his procedural due process <br />rights by erecting the barricades without a hearing. The court ruled in his favor. <br />The city appealed. . <br />DECISION: Affinned. <br />The city violated Warren's procedural due process rights. Procedural <br />due process generally required th.e state to provide a person with notice <br />and an opportunity to be heard before depriving that person of a property <br />interest. <br /> <br />@2006 West, a Thomson business. Quinlan™isa Thomson West brand. Any reproduction is prohibited. <br /> <br />159 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.