Browse
Search
APB agenda 082003
OrangeCountyNC
>
Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active
>
Agricultural Preservation Board
>
Agendas
>
2003
>
APB agenda 082003
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/10/2018 2:09:12 PM
Creation date
5/10/2018 2:07:18 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
8/20/2003
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
136
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
and Use <br />Vol. 31 No. 13 <br />aw Re <br />June 18, 2003 <br />SLANTS & TRENDS <br />THE THREE DISSENTING JUDGES in City of <br />Suffolk v. Board of Zoning Appeals for the City of <br />Suffolk (story, p. 98) contended the majority opin- <br />ion allowed creation of a vested property right <br />based on nothing more than conceptual land -use <br />plans accompanying a rezoning rather than the <br />"specific project" required by the statute. <br />They also argued that allowing actions taken <br />five or more years after the relevant governmental <br />action to constitute "diligent pursuit" permitting <br />establishment of vested rights did not comply with <br />the terms and conditions for vesting enacted by the <br />legislature. It may turn out that the vesting law the <br />Virginia legislature passed in 1998 may not provide <br />developers with the sense of certainty they claimed <br />was missing under court interpretations of vesting, <br />after all. <br />CRITICIZED BY SOME as one of the most con- <br />servative federal appeals court in the nation, the 4th <br />U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently has shown a <br />somewhat surprising pro - government attitude to- <br />ward environmental regulations. Witness, for ex- <br />ample, its decisions upholding endangered species <br />designations. <br />A recent ruling upholding the U.S. Army <br />Corps of Engineers view as to the scope of its ju- <br />risdiction under the Clean Water Act (story, p. 99) <br />predictably outraged the National Association of <br />Home Builders and gave comfort to environmen- <br />talists. The court ruled that because water draining <br />from wetlands into a roadside ditch eventually <br />made its way to a navigable waterway, the Corps <br />could exercise its jurisdiction over drainage works <br />the landowners excavated in the wetlands without <br />benefit of a Clean Water Act permit. <br />In a press release issued by the home builders <br />June 13, NAHB president Kent Conine said, "the <br />Inside <br />Vested Rights <br />e 97 <br />Rezoning Vested Right to Develop........ Page 98 <br />Wetlands <br />Corps' Jurisdiction Upheld .................... Page 99 <br />Environmental Review <br />No Right to Second Review ................. Page 100 <br />Right to Farm <br />No Building Permit Required .............. Page 101 <br />Takings <br />Futility Argument Fails ........................ Page 102 <br />Nonconforming Uses <br />Second -Story Addition Approved........ Page 104 <br />court has transformed virtually every front and <br />back yard in the mid - Atlantic lying next to a man - <br />dug ditch into waterfront property." The association <br />is considering seeking review by the U.S. Supreme <br />Court. <br />The association's rhetoric appears a bit over- <br />blown. One needs to bear in mind that the initial <br />problem arose because the landowners dug a drain- <br />age ditch on property they had been advised was a <br />wetland, and against.the advice of a Soil Conserva- <br />tion Service official. It is not likely that every <br />homeowner who happens to have a low spot in his <br />front yard can expect a visit from the Corps. <br />ATLANTA IN TRAFFIC TROUBLE? On June <br />16, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals joined <br />three other appeals court in ruling EPA should have <br />reclassified the city's air pollution as "severe." The <br />city may have only a year to deal with the problem, <br />possibly by severe traffic restrictions. <br />Business Publishers, Inc. • 8737 Colesviile Rd. • Suite 1100 • Silver Spring, MD 20910 -3928 • Leonard A. Eiserer, President & Publisher <br />Editorial Director: Charlotte Wright Editor: James D. Lawlor, Esq, <br />A& Land Use Law Report (ISSN 1064 - 0401), published 25 times a year. Subscription rate: $397 per year (includes shipping). For subscribers outside North <br />l'-^ft America, please add $16. Six -month and multiple -year rates available on request. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to BPI, 8737 Colesville Rd., <br />fTTM #1100, Silver Spring, MD 20910 -3928. Editorial: (301) 587 -6300; FAX (301) 587 -1081; Customer Service: (301) 589.5103 or (800) 274 -6737; FAX (301) 589- <br />8 P 8493. For fastest service, please Include, account number when you call or write. For information on reprints, contact Copyright Clearance Center, (978) 750 - <br />Ioyew 8400. To purchase documents flagged W, call 1- 800 - 274 -6737. Land Use Law Report is also available electronically via Gale Group, 1- 800- 347 -4253. <br />otExcofteme Come visit our Web site at http:ltwww.bpinews.com <br />'IM-2003 Reproduction in any form prohibited without the express permission from publisher. 0 Copyright Business Publishers, Inc. 2003 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.