Search for: "Parks v. Planning & Zoning Commission"
Results 61 - 80
of 166
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Jan 2016, 9:05 pm
Palm Partners, LLC v City of Oakland Park, 102 F. [read post]
12 Apr 2018, 11:41 am
Greenfield v. [read post]
8 Apr 2015, 10:05 am
Whatever the outcome of the Coral Gables Commission Group V election, I think we’ll all owe Jeannett Slesnick thanks for setting the agenda. [read post]
26 Sep 2016, 6:51 am
Jefferson v. [read post]
19 May 2015, 2:25 pm
After taking testimony, the Planning Commission approved a revised MND in December 2011. [read post]
31 Mar 2015, 8:07 pm
Sandra Murado noted that Building and Zoning unanimously passed the project 7-0; then there was a commission hearing. [read post]
8 Apr 2015, 6:59 am
Ariel Fernandez is the alphabetically first candidate for Coral Gables Commission Group V. [read post]
13 Aug 2019, 9:58 pm
(See National Park Hospitality Assn. v. [read post]
16 Oct 2023, 6:34 am
Reese v. [read post]
1 Nov 2016, 10:24 am
The Planning Commission approved the project under a categorical exemption in CEQA Guidelines section 15303(c). [read post]
2 Jun 2021, 5:16 pm
Protect and Preserve Kahoma AHUPUA’A Assoc. v Maui Planning Commission, 2021 WL 2451978 (HI 6/16/2021) [read post]
16 Jul 2013, 8:55 am
Board of Trustees.)CEQA TIMING Neighbors for Fair Planning v. [read post]
9 Apr 2015, 9:05 pm
Plaintiffs in Michigan v. [read post]
17 Aug 2015, 10:10 pm
Moreover, even if the ordinances had passed, Parker Avenue still needed the Board of Surveyors’ endorsement which required a publicly-advertised hearing at which public testimony was taken, and the Planning Commission’s final plat approval. [read post]
22 Aug 2023, 3:13 am
Lastly, the plaintiff claimed that the new zoning ordinance and map, Ordinance 3, adopted by the Borough Council, and the Borough planning commission’s rejection of the plaintiff’s land development plan, constituted a regulatory taking. [read post]
10 Aug 2014, 8:00 pm
” Five residents from the neighborhood opposed the application, and the Planning Commission denied the application. [read post]
14 Jan 2019, 11:59 am
The City Attorney advised that because no CUP was required, the Commission was required to approve the project if it met design review criteria, and that it could not consider use-related issues such as parking, traffic, safety and soil remediation. [read post]
1 Nov 2021, 2:04 pm
The City’s Planning Commission approved the project pursuant to CEQA’s Class 32 categorical exemption for infill projects. [read post]
14 Jul 2015, 9:28 am
This case includes the following issues: (1) Does the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act [ICCTA] (49 U.S.C. [read post]
1 Jun 2015, 10:52 pm
The Commission’s subjective concern about the “potential adverse impact” of the proposed tower on viewsheds from Alexandria Oaks Park was based on objective photographic and other evidence that the tower would visually intrude on the park, and therefore was not found to have violated the Telecommunications Act. [read post]
