My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/04/2007
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
2007
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/04/2007
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 9:42:15 AM
Creation date
9/28/2007 8:06:10 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
10/04/2007
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
180
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 />September " 2007 I Volume 1 I No. 17 <br /> <br />TO a zoning permit. He claimed that evenu the court had no jurisdic- <br />tion over the zoning permit request, it did have jurisdiction to de- <br />clare the legal status of the rGad. <br />The town countered that if any claim within a the complaint <br />could not be entertained for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, <br />then none of it could be entertained. However, the court found that <br />"if a court had jurisdiction to grant anyone of the claims for relief <br />set out in a complaint, the action should not be dismissed for lack <br />of jurisdiction." <br />The court noted that, while it did not have the authority to decide <br />on an actual zoning permit, the complaint contained enough infor- <br />mation to raise a legitimate question as to the classification of Old <br />2 Rod Highway. In addition, there were other parties with a vested <br />interest in the determination, and the court noted that it had to be <br />settled as it was pertinent to a separate part of Montanaro's claim. <br />Because the court concluded that it had jurisdiction to determine <br />the question, the decision of the lower court was reversed. The case <br />went sent back to the lower court for further proceedings with the <br />mandate that all interested parties be given notice of the proceedings <br />and an opportunity to protect their due process interests. <br /> <br />See also: Rosengarten v. Downes, 71 Conn. App. 372, 802 A.2d <br />170 (2002). <br /> <br />Home Business-Township enjoins dietician from <br />operating home business <br /> <br />Claims work requiring state license not permitted from homes <br /> <br />Citation: Lamb v. Washington Twp. Ed. of Zoning Appeals, <br />2007-0hio-41 01, 2007 WL 2285883 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. <br />Montgomery County 2007) <br /> <br />OHIO (08/10/07)-Lamb was a licensed dietician and certified dia~ <br />betes educator who lived in Washington Township. She saw clients <br />at her home occasionally, and she advertised herself as a dietician <br />in the area telephone book. The listing was in the business pages <br />and included her home address and phone number. <br />The township's zoning inspector found that Lamb was using the <br />home as a "nutrition therapy clinic," which was not permitted under <br />the township's resolution on home businesses. For a home business <br />to be allowed, the occupation being conduction could not: require a <br />state or local license and/or inspection; occupy more than 200 square <br />feet or floor area with in the home; display exterior signs advertising <br /> <br />5 <br /> <br />39 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.