Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Three people turned away from Gathering Place after bringing firearms
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="donner" data-source="post: 3153153" data-attributes="member: 277"><p>it's been a while since i've dealt with cities and zoning, but i don't believe merely zoning land for X immediately makes it X. In fact, often it's been my experience that it's the other way around. We have lots of empty land that is 'zoned' for multifamily living (i.e. apartments). But there are no apartments there (and often there might be homes on the property). It's not that the home is in violation, it's that the zoning came after the house and is part of 'the larger picture'. When things were zoned those folks had the chance to protest the zoning but might not have, banking on things being more valuable in a college town later. But if redevelopment occurs then it would have to comply the with zoning overlay going forward.</p><p></p><p>And often you can build things like churches (and probably parks) in areas zoned for lots of different uses. </p><p></p><p>But even zoning it for a park (which might actually be 'green space' or something 'outdoor' not actually 'city park') likely wouldn't change the ownership issues. And the land owner could always file for a rezoning since those things aren't set in stone. </p><p></p><p>I don't believe a city could simply 'zone' a dilapidated property as a park to force the teardown of a structure or anything like that.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="donner, post: 3153153, member: 277"] it's been a while since i've dealt with cities and zoning, but i don't believe merely zoning land for X immediately makes it X. In fact, often it's been my experience that it's the other way around. We have lots of empty land that is 'zoned' for multifamily living (i.e. apartments). But there are no apartments there (and often there might be homes on the property). It's not that the home is in violation, it's that the zoning came after the house and is part of 'the larger picture'. When things were zoned those folks had the chance to protest the zoning but might not have, banking on things being more valuable in a college town later. But if redevelopment occurs then it would have to comply the with zoning overlay going forward. And often you can build things like churches (and probably parks) in areas zoned for lots of different uses. But even zoning it for a park (which might actually be 'green space' or something 'outdoor' not actually 'city park') likely wouldn't change the ownership issues. And the land owner could always file for a rezoning since those things aren't set in stone. I don't believe a city could simply 'zone' a dilapidated property as a park to force the teardown of a structure or anything like that. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Three people turned away from Gathering Place after bringing firearms
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom