Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Virginia law §33.2-216 prohibits any person from installing a memorial on any highway controlled by the VDOT without a permit. VDOT will install a roadside memorial sign, normally for a period of two years. The sign may not deviate from the standard roadside memorial sign specifications. The cost must by paid by the person requesting the sign ...
A planned unit development (PUD) is a type of flexible, non-Euclidean zoning device that redefines the land uses allowed within a stated land area. PUDs consist of unitary site plans that promote the creation of open spaces, mixed-use housing and land uses, environmental preservation and sustainability, and development flexibility. [1]
Within an ordinance is a list of land use designations commonly known as zoning. Each different type of zone has its own set of allowed uses. These are known as by-right uses. Then there is an extra set of uses known as special uses. To build a use that is listed as a special use, a special-use permit (or conditional-use permit) must be obtained.
Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District, 570 U.S. 595 (2013), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that land-use agencies imposing conditions on the issuance of development permits must comply with the "nexus" and "rough proportionality" standards of Nollan v.
Before the meeting, Dina Wong, the city Department of Planning and Permitting's planning division chief, said Kualoa Ranch has operated on a special-use permit first approved in 1985.
4. Wendy’s Chili. Price: $2.69 cup / $3.59 bowl Let’s address the elephant in the room, because it’s a story so damning for Wendy’s that even today in 2024, it made me hesitate to order this.
Rao’s. New York. With no shortage of hard-to-book eateries, Rao’s stands out.Open since 1896, 60 percent of the tables are reserved for regulars who have standing reservations. To dine here ...
Sheetz v. County of El Dorado (Docket No. 22-1074) is a United States Supreme Court case regarding permit exactions under the Takings Clause.The Supreme Court held, in a unanimous opinion by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, that fees for land-use permits must be closely related and roughly proportional to the effects of the land use – the test established by Nollan v.