Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning Bulletin February 10, 2013 I Volume 7 I Issue 3 <br />See also: Helicopter Associates, Inc. v. City of Stamford, 201 Conn. 700, 519 <br />A.2d 49, 61 A.L.R.4th 789 (1986). <br />See also: Zachs v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Avon, 218 Conn. 324, <br />589 A.2d 351 (1991). <br />See also: Planning and Zoning Com 'n of Town of Lebanon v. Craft, 12 Conn. <br />App. 90, 529 A.2d 1328 (1987). <br />Case Note: <br />Woodbury Donuts had also argued that the ZBA should have been estopped from prohibit- <br />ing the operation of a Dunkin Donuts franchise at the proposed location. It maintained <br />that the 2006 special permit expressly authorized the continuation of a fast food <br />restaurant. The appellate court disagreed. It found that the 2006 special permit more <br />specifically allowed the relocation of the existing legal nonconforming use of the seasonal <br />fast food restaurant. Accordingly, the court determined that EYRE should have known <br />that only seasonal fast food restaurants were permitted in the complex that it constructed <br />subsequent to the issuance of the 2006 special permit. <br />Rezoning —Under settlement <br />agreement with city, billboard <br />companies are exempted from zoning <br />regulations <br />Competitor billboard company challenges settlement <br />agreement as beyond the powers of the city and <br />void <br />Citation: Summit Media LLC v. City of Los Angeles, 211 Cal. App. 4th 921, <br />2012 WL 6126868 (2d Dist. 2012) <br />CALIFORNIA (12/10/12) —This case addressed the issue of whether a settle- <br />ment agreement between a city and certain billboard companies, exempting <br />those billboard companies from certain zoning regulations, was ultra vires (i.e., <br />"beyond the powers" of the city) and void. It also addressed whether, if the <br />settlement agreement was ultra vires and void, zoning permits already issued <br />pursuant to the settlement agreement were also void. <br />The Background /Facts: In December 2000, the City of Los Angeles (the <br />"City") passed an ordinance imposing an interim prohibition on the issuance of <br />permits for the construction or placement of new off -site signs. That ban became <br />permanent in April 2002 when the City amended the Los Angeles Municipal <br />Code (LAMC or municipal code) to establish a permanent, general ban (with <br />exceptions not relevant to this case) on new off -site signs throughout the city (the <br />2002 sign ban). The 2002 sign ban also applied to "alterations or enlargements <br />of legally existing off -site signs." <br />Also, in February and July 2002, the City passed two ordinances amending <br />© 2013 Thomson Reuters 7 <br />