(a) Pre-approval revisions to the application. Applicants must submit to the HUD Area Office and to Central Office all revisions to the application. A revision is considered significant if it alters the scope, location, or scale of the project or changes the beneficiaries' population.
The applicant must hold at least one public hearing prior to making a significant revision to the application.
(b) Post preliminary approval amendments. Applicants receiving preliminary approval must submit to the HUD Central Office, a request for approval of any significant amendment. A copy of the request must also be submitted to the Area Office. A significant amendment involves new activities or alterations thereof which will change the scope, location, scale, or beneficiaries of such activities or which, as a result of a number of smaller changes, add up to an amount that exceeds ten percent of the grant. HUD approval of amendments may be granted to those requests which meet all of the following criteria:
(1) New or significantly altered activities must meet the criteria for selection applicable at the time of receipt of the program amendment.
(2) The recipient must have complied with all requirements of this subpart.
(3) The recipient may make amendments other than those requiring prior HUD approval as defined in paragraph (b) of this section but each recipient must notify both the Area and Central Offices of such changes.
[47 FR 7983, Feb. 23, 1982, as amended at 61 FR 11476, Mar. 20, 1996]
Notes of Decisions
Soc'y Hill Towers Owners' Ass'n v. Rendell, 20 F. Supp. 2d 855 (E.D. Pa. 1998).
· cites it 3× “7 ¶ 19; 7) The City submitted to HUD a request for a fifth amendment pursuant (the “revised request”) to 24 C.F.R. § 570.463 on February 21, 1997, (Fed.”
Soc'y Hill Towers Owners' Assn. v. Rendell, 210 F.3d 168 (3rd Cir. 2000).
· cites it 2× “The Residents claimed that the City had not properly performed the environmental and historic reviews required under NEPA and NHPA prior to HUD’s approval of an Urban Development Action Grant (“UDAG”), and that the City had not provided meaningful public hearings as required…”
Soc'y Hill Towers Owners'ass'n v. Rendell, 20 F. Supp. 2d 855 (E.D. Pa. 1998).
· cites it 3× “7 ¶ 19; 7) The City submitted to HUD a request for a fifth amendment pursuant (the "revised request") to 24 C.F.R. § 570.463 on February 21, 1997, (Fed.”
Derosa v. United States Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., 787 F.2d 840 (2d Cir. 1986).
“Appellants also argue that changes in the UDAG application amounted to “significant revision[s]” requiring additional hearings pursuant to 24 C.F.R. § 570.463 (a) (1982). One such change was the use of the Section 108 loan instead of IDA bonds; a second was the substitution of a…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.