Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/04/1995

Home

Page 8 March 15, t995 Z.B. appealed, and the court affirmed. The board appealed again. DECISION: Reversed; board's decision reinstated. If an applicant requests a use variance claiming unnecessary hardship based only on speculative, anticipated loss of future income, a zoning board may properly reject the request. Williams failed to show unnecessary hardship. He had not spent a signifi- cant amount of money in reliance on a previous variance or a valid building permit. Instead, he claimed a loss of potential future income. This speculative loss allowed the Zoning Board to reject the request for a use variance. Nuisance County Seizes Derelict Cars Parked in Open Field Schneider v. County of San Diego, 28 F.3d 89 (California) J994 Schneider owned property in an agricultural zone in San Diego County, Calif. He rented out the house on the property but parked nine buses, two motorhomes, and two cars on the tot. After receiving a number of complaints, the county determined the vehicles violated county zoning ordinances and were a public nuisance. The county unsuccessfully tried to persuade Schneider to move the vehi- cles and, in September, 1989, notified Schneider that the vehicles parked on his property violated the local zoning ordinance and constituted a public nui- sance. After a hearing, the county gave him 30 days to remove the vehicles. When he failed to comply, the county had the vehicles towed, dismantled, and sold as scrap. Schneider sued the county, alleging the county violated his Fourth Amend~ ment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure when it entered his property to take the vehicles. He also claimed the county violated his due pro- cess rights by destroying his vehicles. The court entered judgment for the county, and Schneider appealed. DECISION:' Reversed in part. The county did not violate Schneider's Fourth Amendment rights by taking the vehicles, but it did violate his due process rights by dismantling the vehi- cles without giving him proper notice. The county did not violate Schneider's Fourth Amendment rights because it did not need a warrant to enter his property to remove the vehicles. A warrant is required to enter private property to remove public nuisances. However, Schneider did not live there, so he did not have an expectation of privacy in any part Of the property. Since the seizure of the vehicles did not affect Schneider 's privacy interests, no warrant was required. The trial court's decision was reversed in part because the county violated Schneider's due process rights by failing to notify Schneider that his vehicles would be destroyed. Due process required the county to give Schneider notice and a hearing before dismantling his vehicles. While the county notified Schneider that it would remove his vehicles, it did not warn Schneider that it would disassemble them.