Laserfiche WebLink
January 25, 2012 ' Volume 61 No. 2 Zoning Bulletin <br />The Court concluded by recognizing the "conditional nature" of the <br />inverse condemnation judgment: If the City complies with the writ of <br />mandate requiring the City to vacate the resolution denying the Partner- <br />ship's development application, it need not pay the judgment (which was <br />to be recalculated on remand per order of the Court). <br />See also: Hamer v. Town of Ross, 59 Cal. 2d 776, 31 Cal. Rptr. 335, <br />382 P 2d 375 (1963). <br />See also: Ross v. City of Yorba .Linda, 1 Cal. App. 4th 954, 2 Cal. Rptr. <br />2d 638 (4th Dist. 1991). <br />See also: Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606, 121 S. Ct. 2448, <br />150 L. Ed. 2d 592, 52 Env't. Rep. Cas. (BNA) 1609, 32 Envtl. L. Rep. <br />20516 (2001). <br />See also: Penn Cent. Transp. Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104, 98 <br />S. Ct. 2646, 57 L. Ed. 2d 631, 11 Env't. Rep. Cas. (BNA) 1801, 8 Envtl. <br />L. Rep. 20528 (1978). <br />Case Note: The City had argued that any discriminatory downsizing <br />was justified because the property was on a slope requiring high <br />retaining walls and a "tunnel -like" access road. The Court rejected <br />this argument for several reasons: First the topography rationale did <br />not support discriminatory treatment where much of the City re- <br />flected the same topography. Second, because there could have been <br />measures to "cure" the impact of grading or retaining walls, topog- <br />raphy by itself was not a reason to deny Partnership's application. <br />Most fundamental was that the purpose of the RVL was to "pre- <br />serve canyons," and this Property was a slope, not a canyon. <br />Validity of Ordinance — Landlord Challenges <br />Ordinance Limiting Occupancy of Single <br />Dwelling Units to Three Unrelated Individuals <br />Landlord contends ordinance violates the state <br />Constitution's - Due Process Clause <br />Citation: McMaster v. Columbia Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 2011 WL <br />6156995 (S. C. 2011) <br />SOUTH CAROLINA (12/12/11)—This case addressed the issue of <br />whether a city's ordinance, which limited to three the number of unrelated <br />8 © 2012 Thomson Reuters <br />