Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/07/1996

Home

Z.B. April 1996 -- Page special use permits was unconstitutionally vague. The section gave the city authority to determine whether a special use "would cause any damage, haz- ard, nuisance, or other detriment to persons or property in the vicinity." The court found although the city had not intentionally discriminated against the handicapped, its 15-person occupancy limit was unreasonable and consti- tuted a failure to make reasonable accommodations for the handicapped in violation of the Act. The court raised the limit to 25, but allowed the city to impose the annual review requirement as a crucial component of the special use permit. The court awarded damages to Turning Point of $5,618, based on the reimbursement for children's meals it would have served if allowed to house an average of 35 occupants (instead of 12). Turning Point appealed, claiming the ordinance was unconstitutional and that the special use permit should not be subject to annual review. The city appealed the amount of the damages award. DECISION: Affirmed, but sent back to the lower court for modifications. The lower court improperly allowed the city to keep the annual review requirement as a condition to the special use permit; it also improperly calcu- lated the damages award. The limit of 25, however, was reasonable. The city did not discriminate against the handicapped, nor was the ordinance unconsti- tutionally vague. Annual review of the permit would have been to ensure the shelter did not later have an adverse impact on the neighborhood's character. But this purpose could have been accomplished through ordinary nuisance laws and city author- ity. An annual review of the permit was unnecessary. The section of the zoning ordinance was not so vague as to make it uncon- stitutional. Its language was characteristic of zoning regulations and not so general that a reasonable property owner could not understand it. The court should not have used 35 -- Turning Point's average occupancy. -- as the basis for its damages calculations because the agreed-upon reason- able and safe limit was 25. The case was sent back to the lower court with orders to recalculate the damages and eliminate the annual review condition from the special use permit. Williams v. C~ty of Columbia, 906 F. 2d 994 (]990).. Rowe v. City of PocateIlo, 218 P..2d 695 (1950). Ordinance -- Group Challenges Regulation of Tenant-Occupied Mini-Dorms College Area Renters a~zd La~dlord Associatiott v. City of San Diego, 49 Cal. Rptr. 2d 809 (Califor~ffa) .1996 In 1985, San Diego residents formed a task force to evaluate overpopula- tion of single-family housing units.