Is mono framework legal
In August 1979 the Board approved the final map of Phase I of the development. In July 1979, Aspen Creek was granted water and sewer permits for the entire development. Thereafter, Aspen Creek decided to complete a portion of the development (Phase I) consisting of 83 condominium units with the remaining portion (Phase II), 97 units, to be built at a later date. On February 27, 1979, the Board conditionally approved Aspen Creek's tentative map of a subdivision of 180 condominium units for 18 months, until August 27, 1980.
![is mono framework legal is mono framework legal](https://i1.rgstatic.net/publication/316107046_Slum_Improvement_through_Legal_Framework_in_India/links/5b0967850f7e9b1ed7f71f01/largepreview.png)
2Īspen Creek is an investment partnership formed for the purpose of developing certain real property located in Mammoth Lakes. He asserts no other interest in the litigation. Plaintiff Griffis is a resident and taxpayer of Mammoth Lakes, located in Mono County. We further conclude plaintiff's other claims of illegality are without merit we therefore reverse. 1 a part of the Subdivision Map Act (Map Act) (§ 66410 et seq.).
Is mono framework legal code#
We conclude plaintiff's principal claims are barred by the statute of limitations set forth in Government Code section 66499.37, fn. Aspen Creek, Mono County, and its Board and Commission appeal. The court also awarded plaintiff $100,000 in attorneys fees.
Is mono framework legal trial#
The trial court granted plaintiff injunctive and mandamus relief effectively setting aside approval of the final map. According to plaintiff, because the extension by the Commission was void, the tentative map expired before the final map was approved, so that final map approval was also void. Rather, his principal contention was that the Commission had been without legal authority to grant an extension of the tentative map nearly a year earlier. Plaintiff did not allege that any condition in the tentative remained unsatisfied or that the subdivision would cause any harm. (Aspen Creek) to challenge the county's approval of the final map of the second phase of a subdivision.
![is mono framework legal is mono framework legal](https://images.iconfu.com/sets/12-mono/icons/building_block_icon.png)
Plaintiff, John Griffis, commenced this taxpayer's suit against the County of Mono, its board of supervisors (Board), its planning commission (Commission), and a real-estate development partnership, Aspen Creek Phase II, Ltd. Gilchrist and Frank Gooch III for Defendants and Appellants and for Real Party in Interest and Appellant. Gallagher, Deputy County Counsel, Gilchrist & Rutter, Richard I. (Opinion by Sims, J., with Regan, Acting P. ASPEN CREEK PHASE II, LTD., Real Party in Interest and Appellant. COUNTY OF MONO et al., Defendants and Appellants. JOHN GRIFFIS, Plaintiff and Respondent, v.