Laserfiche WebLink
<br />--,c'-, -',.-," - ' <br />..::..-"~':..:::, -' "::"':'~:_~.';....- ,~--_. <br /> <br />. ._.o::..._:.:c_-,c.-;-.,_': ~.':c'~-"-. , , .. ,---- ,'- '...' ,. <br />-------------'" - ----_.~------_.--'-._.- -,--_.- .,-'.-- <br /> <br />Zoning Bulletin <br /> <br />lawful proposed development to' additiollal regulations as a distinct <br />. "use of land" simply because of its particular size. <br />Indeed, the court explained, uses permitted as of right were pre- <br />sumed not to have an adverse affect on the district. Therefore, with' <br />site plan and subdivision applications involving uses that were per- <br />mitted as of right, there could not be further inquiry into the effects <br />of that permitted use. The court found that the purpose and effect of <br />S 4.5.2 was to allow the Commission to conduct a further inquiry <br />into the effects of a land use that was permitted as of right. Accord- <br />ingly, the court concluded that S 4.5.2 was invalid. <br /> <br />See also:Pansy Road, LLC v. Town Plan and Zoning Com'n of Town <br />of Fairfield, 283. Conn. 369, 926 A.2d 1029 (2007). <br /> <br />Case Note: The Commission had contended that S 4.5.2 was <br />not based on the "size" of the parcel, but rather on the pro- <br />posed "use of land." The court found that the "proposed use of <br />a property to establish more. than thirty building lots of the re- <br />quired size [wa]s predicated, however, on the size of the parcel to <br />be subdivided." It also found it was "predicated on the <.;:haracter <br />of the land's ownership, not its proposed use." The court noted <br />that if Lord's property were comprised of two separate parcels <br />'with two separate owners, each of whom submitted an applica- <br />tion for a thirty lot subdivision, S 4.5.2 would not have applied. <br /> <br />Preemption-County cites landowner for . <br />grading without permit requ,ired by ordinance <br /> <br />Landowner argues grading ordinance was preempted by <br />state law <br /> <br /> :1 <br /> :1 <br /> !I <br />() ii <br />II <br />I, <br />ii <br /> If <br /> \1 <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> \ <br /> II <br /> i <br /> I <br /> , <br /> I <br /> II <br /> \1 <br /> I <br /> II <br /> II <br />ell II <br /> <br />Citation: Martin v. Riverside County Dept. of Code Enforcement, <br />2008 WL 4277308 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2008) <br /> <br />CALIFORNIA (09119/08)-:John Martin owned property in the <br />county. A seasonal.stream ran across his property. In 2006, the coun- <br />ty's Code :gnforcement Division of the Department of Building and <br />Safety found that Martin graded land across the stream without a <br />permit. Specifically, the county found that Martin violated the county \..~) <br />ordinance, RCO No. 457, section 4, subdivision (j) (the Grading Or- <br />dinance). The Grading Ordinance prohibited grading. without a coun- <br /> <br />'8 <br /> <br />. @ 2008 Thomson Reuters/West <br /> <br />88 <br />