This submit was authored by Matthew Loescher, Esq.
On this case, plaintiff George Sheetz challenged the $23,420 site visitors impression mitigation price (“TIM price”) imposed by the defendant El Dorado County as a situation of issuing him a constructing allow for the development of a single-family residence on his property in Placerville. Sheetz appealed from the judgment entered after the trial court docket sustained the County’s demurrer with out depart to amend and denied his verified petition for writ of mandate. On attraction, Sheetz contended for reversal was required as a result of the TIM price was invalid beneath each…
Sokoloff Attorneys are dedicated to defending your privateness. This Privateness Coverage outlines how we deal with your private info to guard your privateness.
Privateness Laws:Since January 1, 2004, all Canadian organizations engaged in industrial actions have been required to adjust to the Private Info Safety and Digital Paperwork Act (“PIPEDA”) and the Canadian Requirements Affiliation Mannequin Code for the Safety of Private Info included by reference into PIPEDA . These obligations lengthen to attorneys and regulation corporations, together with Sokoloff Attorneys.
As a providers agency, we’ve skilled and moral obligations to maintain confidential the data we obtain within the context…
This post originally appeared on the Dalton Tomich blog and is reposted with permission from Dan Dalton, Esq, – https://daltontomich.com/the-importance-of-zoning-notice-requirements-under-michigan-law/
in Montrief v. Macon Township Board of Trustees, the plaintiffs-landowners filed suit against the Township alleging an amended zoning ordinance was invalid and unenforceable based on a failure to comply with certain notice requirements.
Under the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act, an enforcing authority, which in most cases is the local government, must provide notice with respect to certain actions taken in zoning matters. Generally, among the most common actions requiring notice are the following:Authorities must provide notice for public…
This post was authored by Amy Lavine, Esq,
A recent decision from the Suffolk County Supreme Court, Matter of Save Sag Harbor v Village of Sag Harbor, involving the village’s adoption of a local law that expanded the definition of an apartment building in order to allow more affordable housing. The village attorney had drafted a negative declaration pursuant to SEQRA, which was given to the village board members at the public hearing, but there was no discussion by the board members or public commenters about the law’s potential environmental impacts.
After closing the public hearing, the board simultaneously adopted…
Opening the Floodgates: Axon Enterprises, Inc. v. FTC and the Weakening of Public Power
Keenen McMurrayIn November of 2022, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on a pair of consolidated cases including Axon Enterprise, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission[1] and Securities and Exchange Commissionv. Cochran.[2] These cases concern whether challenges to the adjudication processes of administrative agencies can properly be heard in a federal district court, without first going through the agencies’ respective processes.[3] This administrative agency adjudication process is established by the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), which is a federal act that governs the procedures of administrative law.[4]…
This post was authored by Matthew Loescher, Esq.
In 2018, the City of Puyallup adopted the Puyallup Municipal Ordinance (PMO) 3179, which established a new chapter of the Puyallup Municipal Code—chapter 20.72 (PMC 20.72). This new code chapter restricted the sites of day use centers and overnight shelters serving people experiencing homelessness within the City. The ordinance permitted such centers and shelters only in industrial zones in a small corner of the City that was distant from any services and had almost no access to transit. Siting anywhere else in the City required approval from a majority of Puyallup’s city…
This post was authored by Matthew Loescher, Esq.
Charlestown Township, a municipality in Chester County, enacted a zoning ordinance that permits outdoor, off-premises advertising signs in a particular district. A statewide regulation concerning roadside billboards promulgated by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (“PennDOT”) had the practical effect of barring that use. The property owner Charlestown Outdoor, LLC appealed the decision of the township zoning board, which denied the property owner’s challenge to the validity of the township’s zoning ordinance that permitted the construction of billboards in the zoning district. The Court of Common Pleas, Chester County, affirmed the zoning board’s…
This post was authored by Matthew Loescher, Esq.
Appellants, Douglass Ebner, 2253 Cedar Point LLC, and 2243 Cedar Point LLC appealed the judgment of the Erie County Court of Common Pleas, which granted summary judgment in favor of appellee, the City of Sandusky, on Ebner’s counterclaims that Sandusky Ordinance Nos. 12-107 and 17-088 were invalidly enacted and were unconstitutional. The litigation at issue was initiated on October 31, 2017, when Ebner’s neighbor, Judith Kinzel, filed a complaint against Ebner seeking injunctive relief and damages. Specifically, Kinzel alleged that Ebner’s use of the properties for short-term rentals was in violation of…
