Laserfiche WebLink
August 25, 2016 1 Volume 10 1 Issue 16 Zoning Bulletin <br /> See also: Anderson v. handalia, 159 Ohio App. 3d 508, 2005- <br /> Ohio-118, 824 N.E.2d 568 (2d Dist. Montgomery County 2005). <br /> See also:Freedom Tp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals v. Portage County <br /> Bd. of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 16 <br /> Ohio App. 3d 387, 476 N.E.2d 360 (11th Dist. Portage County <br /> 1984). <br /> is <br /> Vested rights—After Issuing a <br /> g g <br /> Building Permit for a <br /> Crematorium, City Issues <br /> Emergency Ordinance <br /> Requiring Conditional Use <br /> Permits for Such Uses <br /> Crematorium developer contends it has <br /> a vested right in construction and need <br /> not obtain the conditional use permit <br /> Citation: Stewart Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Oakland, 248 Cal. <br /> App. 4th 410, 203 Cal. Rptr. 3d 677 (IstDist. 2016) <br /> CALIFORNIA (06/23/16)—This case addressed the issue of <br /> whether an emergency ordinance application to a permitted use, <br /> under which a conditional use permit was now required, impaired <br /> the developer's vested right. <br /> The Background/Facts: In 2011, Stewart Enterprises, Inc. and <br /> SE Combined Services of California, Inc. (collectively, "Stew- <br /> art")began the process of obtaining approval to operate a cremato- <br /> rium in East Oakland. It was determined that the proposed <br /> crematorium was a permitted "general manufacturing" use in the <br /> applicable zoning district. After investing nearly two million dol- <br /> lars in the project,in May 2012,Stewart obtained a building permit <br /> to construct the crematorium on the site in East Oakland. <br /> Less than a week later, the Oakland City Council passed an <br /> emergency ordinance which required a conditional use permit <br /> ("CUP") to operate new crematoria. The emergency ordinance <br /> further provided, among other things, that no building permit that <br /> 8 ©2016 Thomson Reuters <br />