My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/01/2012
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Planning Commission
>
2012
>
Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/01/2012
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2025 10:10:47 AM
Creation date
2/27/2012 11:22:43 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Planning Commission
Document Date
03/01/2012
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
96
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
January 25, 2012 I Volume 61 No. 2 Zoning Bulletin <br />The Court rejected the City's contention that the delegation power <br />for performance of department duties allowed under the City Charter <br />should be "import[ed]" into § 322(a). Section 322(a) enumerated spe- <br />cific officers for the ZBA's composition; it did not require a general de- <br />partmental participation. Since the Charter permitted the delegation of <br />duties imposed upon the department rather than specific officers of the <br />department delegation was precluded. <br />Case Note: The Court offered that if, as the City had argued, ser- <br />vice on the ZBA was a burden on the City Solicitor and City Engi- <br />neer, § 322(b) allowed cities with a home rule charter to establish a <br />board of adjustment consisting of five members who are city resi- <br />dents. Section 322(a) applied by default only if a home rule charter <br />city eschewed the option of establishing a board of adjustment <br />which it had here. Thus, the City had the option of composing a <br />board of adjustment under 322(b) or remaining with the default <br />composition provided in § 322(a). <br />Spot Zoning —City Downsizes Zoning of 2.85- <br />Acre Parc Allowing Only One Dwelling Per <br />20 Acres <br />Owners contend rezoning is impermissible spot zoning and a <br />compensatory taking <br />Citation: Avenida San Juan Partnership v. City of San Clemente, 2011 <br />WL 6188451 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2011) <br />CALIFORNIA (12/14/11)—This case addressed the issue of whether the <br />rezoning of a parcel constituted impermissible spot zoning. It also addressed <br />whether the rezoning amounted to a compensable regulatory taking. <br />The Background/Facts: In 1980, the Avenida San Juan Partnership <br />(the "Partnership ") purchased a 2.85-acre lot (the "Property ") on a <br />slope in the city of San Clemente, California (the "City ") . At the time of <br />that purchase, the zoning allowed six dwellings per acre. <br />In 1996, the City rezoned the Property to "RVL" . "residential, very <br />low," allowing one dwelling per 20 acres. All parcels surrounding the <br />Property were zoned "RL" "residential low density zone," -which al- <br />lowed four dwellings per one acre. <br />The Partnership did not learn about the rezoning until 2006 when <br />it applied for a development application to build four dwellings on the <br />2.85 -acre Property. At the recommendation of the planning commission, <br />the city council denied the Partnership's application. <br />6 © 2012 Thomson Reuters <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.