Search for: "Parks v. Planning & Zoning Commission" Results 81 - 100 of 166
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
23 Oct 2015, 4:16 pm by Patricia Salkin
Here, to protect against random or ad hoc zoning, a super-majority of the Metropolitan Council would be required to override the planning commission’s disapproval of a proposed zoning change. [read post]
13 Oct 2015, 9:48 am by Abbott & Kindermann
California State Lands Commission (September 17, 2015, A141696, A141697) ___ Cal.App.4th ___. [read post]
3 Sep 2015, 11:57 am by Cody M. Poplin
Leon informed the plaintiffs in Klayman v. [read post]
27 Aug 2015, 10:24 pm by Patricia Salkin
Here, however, Maryland law specifically authorized the Commission to acquire and manage lands for public parks, draft and adopt master plans, draft zoning and subdivision ordinances, adopt development regulations, act on land development applications, and recommend other land use policies to Montgomery County. [read post]
22 Aug 2015, 5:41 am by SHG
Other officials suggest creating a pen for the women and costumed characters — sort of a panhandling zoo — or turning this great bustling commercial zone into, of all things, a park. [read post]
17 Aug 2015, 10:10 pm by Patricia Salkin
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]
31 Jul 2015, 6:24 am by Patricia Salkin
Warden was also required to file a site plan application with the Planning and Zoning Commission, which must be approved to seek a permit to commence construction. [read post]
14 Jul 2015, 9:28 am by Abbott & Kindermann
This case includes the following issues: (1) Does the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act [ICCTA] (49 U.S.C. [read post]
18 Jun 2015, 12:58 pm by Bryan W. Wenter and Ronny Clausner
In essence, the CBIA’s challenge was based on the “unconstitutional conditions” doctrine from the Supreme Court of the United States’ Nollan v California Coastal Commission and Dolan v. [read post]
1 Jun 2015, 10:52 pm by Patricia Salkin
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]