Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/01/2012

Home

January 10, 2012 1 Volume 61 No. 1 Zoning Bulletin agreed with the Dispensaries that was the case here. The Dispensaries could not have initiated the administrative review that they allegedl y were required to exhaust, and the party authorized to do so —the director did not do so before the Dispensaries sought judicial review. Specifically, here, the court found that under the Code, the Dispensa- ries could not challenge the nuisance abatement compliance order imme- diately. only the director could initiate a hearing. The director would only initiate a hearing if there was failure to comply with the order. In this case, the landlords, who received their own orders regarding the properties on which the Dispensaries operated, in effect, complied with the orders and abated the nuisance by proceeding to evict the Dispensaries. Thus, even though the Dispensaries disagreed with the order, they could not comply. under protest and then initiate an administrative review, nor could they have taken a risk of noncompliance and waited for the director to initiate a hearing; this option was negated because their landlords complied with the order. Here, the director presumably did not initiate a hearing because the landlords had complied. Accordingly, in the end, administrative review before the board was not a remedy that the Dispensaries could have pur- sued for relief; administrative review was an "illusory remedy" here and therefore the Doctrine did not apply. See also: Eye Dog Foundation v. State Bd. of Guide Dogs for Blind, 67 Cal. 2d 536, 63 Cal. Rptr. 21, 432 P.2d 717 (1967). See also: ()go Associates v. City of Torrance, 37 Cal. App. 3d 830, 112 Cal. Rptr. 761 (2d Dist. 1974); accord, Campbell v. Regents of University of California, 35 Cal. 4th 311, 25 Cal. Rptr. 3d 320, 106 P.3d 976, 195 Ed. Law Rep. 989, 22 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 905 (2005). Case Note: The superior court had also denied the Dispensaries' peti- tion on the grounds of lack of ripeness and failure to show irreparable harm. The appellate court noted that those grounds were related to the Doctrine, but did not provide alternative bases to uphold the denial. Preempton—Mining Company Denied Variance from Setback Requirements for Mning Actvities Mining company contends local ordinance setback requirement is preempted by state Surface Mining Conservation and Reclamation Act Citation: Hoffman Min. Co., Inc. v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Adams Tp., 2011 WL 5865672 (Pa. 2011) PENNSYLVANIA (11/23/11)—This case addressed the issue of whether the Surface Mining Conservation and Reclamation Act (52 P.S. § % 1396.1 to 1396.19a) (the "Surface Mining Act") preempts a provision in a local 4 © 2012 Thomson Reuters