Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/04/1995

Home

Page 4 -- March 1995 Z.B. quo. Despite the trial court's order to draft a permit, the board did not have to do so because of the appeal. Otherwise, Bankoff did everything necessary to get the permit before the zoning change and was entitled to it.. Marmah Inc. v. Greenwich, 405 A.2d 63 (1978). First National Bank of Skokie v. Village of Skokie and Board of Education, 229 N.E. 2d 378 (1967). .. Zoning Change N City Sues to Stop Citizen Group From Repealing Zoning Change by Referendum City of lrvine v. Irvine Citizens Against Overdevelopment, 30 Cal. Rptr. 2d 797 (California) 1994 A California state statute required cities to establish and maintain an inter- nally consistent general plan. The city of Irvine, Calif., was a "charter city," as distinguished from a "gen- eral law city." Charter cities were exempt from state zoning laws, but could adopt all or part of the state zoning statute by charter or ordinance. From 1984, the city's municipal code required consistency between zoning ordinances and the city's general plan. '. A company owned a large parcel of undeveloped land within the city's "statutory sphere of influence," but not within city limits. In 1987, the com- pany began negotiating with the city for the right to develop the land. The company proposed a general plan amendment and a zoning change. At the time, the city was studying the interaction between land development and open space preservation. · In 1988, the city council held an initiative election to amend the preserva- tion element of the city's general plan. It sought to create large contiguous conservation and open space areas, and transfer development opportunities to separate, consolidated development areas. The city planned to do this through a phased dedication and compensating development opportunities program, acceptable to both the city and the landowner. The initiative passed. The city decided to implement the initiative through a general plan amend- ment. It also adopted an interim urgency zoning ordinance, which categorized the zone containing the company's land as unsuitable for immediate develop- ment. The interim ordinance stayed effective while the city's community devel- opment department prepared a permanent zoning ordinance consistent with the amended general plan. At the same time, the department completed work on the company's development application. Three years later, the council certified an environmental impact report, approved the company's proposed general plan amendment, and began consid- ering the company's proposed zoning change. Since this development plan was tied to another company-owned parcel, the council waited until after a city election to consider the zoning change. In the election, the city's voters favored continuing the program implementing the 1988 initiative. Soon after the elec- tion, the council approved the company's proposed zoning change. The Irvine