My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/07/2007
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
2007
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/07/2007
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 9:41:46 AM
Creation date
6/4/2007 7:51:04 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
06/07/2007
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.
/
279
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 />Apri115, 2007 I Volume 1 1 No.8 <br /> <br />The court round in Buckley's ravor, finding the amended o~dinance was <br />invalid as applied to the landfill, because the landfill should have been <br />considered a preexisting nonconforming use. <br />The tOVi7Il appealed the trial court's decision. <br /> <br />Decision: Affirmed. <br />State law mandated that a bylaw could "not apply to uses lawfully in <br />existence before the first notice or public hearing on such bylaw." The <br />appeals court round that it was "undisputed" that the landfill existed as <br />legal use before the town first published notice or its intention to amend <br />the zoning law. Therefore, the building inspector and the board exceed- <br />ed their authority when the cease and desist orders were issued and sub- <br />sequently upheld. <br />In addition, the court found that the bylaw rrustrated the purpose or <br />the order issued previously by the DEP. That agency had authority to <br />regulate the capping and closure or landfills, and the work to do so was <br />in progress at the time that the town amended the landfill. The court <br />noted that it was well settled that "Im]unicipaiities [could] not adopt <br />bylaws or ordinances that [were] inconsistent with State laws." Here, <br />compliance with the bylaw would interfere with compliance with the <br />administrative order from the DEP. <br />Because the appeals court round no error, the lower court's decision <br />was affirmed. <br /> <br />See also: Cohasset Heights, Ltd. v. ZoningBd. of Appeals of Cohasset, <br />53 Mass. App. Ct. 116, 757 N.E.2d 274 (2001). <br /> <br />See also: Boston Gas Co. v. City of Somerville, 420 Mass. 702, 652 <br />N.E.2d 132 (1995). <br /> <br />Conditional Use Permit-City denies school1s application <br />to construct football stadium <br /> <br />School claims decision was unconstitutionally arbitrary <br /> <br />Citation: City of Roswell v. Fellowship Christian School, Inc., 2007 WL <br />878992 (Ga. 2007) <br /> <br />GEORGIA (03/26/07,)---':Pellowship Christian School operated in the <br />city or Roswell. The school applied for a conditional use permit to <br />construct several new buildings, including a 1,500-seat stadium. Sev- <br />eral neighboring property o'W-ners opposed the construction, and spoke <br />out against granting me permit at hearings held to decide on the <br />school's application. <br />Ultimately, the permit was recommended for approval despite con- <br />tinued community objections. The city council approved the permit, <br />but it did not allow the construction of the stadium. The school sued <br /> <br />3 <br /> <br />167 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.