Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/07/2008

Home

Zoning Bulletin . considered. Without deciding whether attenuation was sufficient grounds to dismiss a BZA application, the court concluded that there was no sub- stantial evidence in the record to support the BZA's conclusion that Fol- lies' plans were "deceased" because they were not approved by the HPRB during the conceptual design review. The court noted that the HPRB's de- cision was not even a part of theBZA's record, nor was there a regulation requiring petitioners' to seek HPRB approval before the BZA could ap- prove their application. Moreover, said the court, since the Act was not within the BZA's purview, the BZA's conclusion that the HPRB was un- likely to approve a future application Was not entitled to deference. The court concluded that since Follies properly filed its application for zoning relief before the BZA, it had the right to have its application de- cided on the merits. See also: Thorn v. Walker, 912 A.2d 1192 (D.C. 2006). See als0: Ukrainian-American Bar Ass'n, Inc, v. Baker, 893 E2d 1374 (D.C. Cir. 1990). Agency Procedures-Business argues city council erred ih denying its application to operate sexually-oriented business It asserts ordinance prohibited council from considering denial grounds other than those cited by city staff . Citation: City of Commerce City v. Enclave West, Inc., 185 P.3d 174 (Colo. 2008) '. Enclave West, Inc. (Enclave) operated a licensed private social club in an industrially zoned area of the city since 2003. In 2005, it applied for a license to operate a sexually-oriented business on the premises. The li- cense application was denied by city staff. The city staff based the denial on their determination that the city ordinance prohibited sexually-ori- ented business within 1,000 feet of an Urban Renewal District, and their finding that Enclave's proposed business would be within 1,000 feet of the Urban Renewal District. Enclave appealed the denial to the city counciL On appeal, the city council found that the city staff's reason for denying the license was in-' correct. The city council found that the ordinance prohibited sexually oriented business in Urban Renewal Districts, but did not prohibit them within 1,000 feet of such districts. Nonetheless, the city council denied Enclave's license application, It based its denial on its determination that the city's ordinance prohibited a sexually-oriented business from operat- ing within 1,000 feet of an occupied single family residence, and its find- 10 @ 2008 Thomson ReuterslWest 58