Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/07/2017

Home

August 25, 2017 I Volume 11 I Issue 16 Zoning Bulletin specific and restricted in their transferability —features contrary to the well -established CUP principles. By defining a specific formula retail establishment (e.g., Starbucks) as a "proposed use" and by requiring the land to be used only for that establishment (e.g., Starbucks), Mea- sure R "conditions the CUP on the character of the permittee or ap- plicant rather than on the use of the land," and is thus illegal, found the court. See also: DeVita v. County of Napa, 9 Cal. 4th 763, 38 Cal. Rptr: 2d 699, 889 P.2d 1019 (1995). See also: Citizens for Planning Responsibly v. County of San Luis Obispo, 176 Cal. App. 4th 357, 97 Cal. Rptr. 3d 636 (2d Dist. 2009). See also: Wiltshire v. Superior Court, 172 Cal. App. 3d 296, 218 Cal. Rptr: 199 (4th Dist. 1985). See also: Citizens for Jobs and the Economy v. County of Orange, 94 Cal. App. 4th 1311, 115 Cal. Rptr. 2d 90 (4th Dist. 2002), as modified on denial of reh'g, (Feb. 4, 2002). See also: Anza Parking Corp. v. City of Burlingame, 195 Cal. App. 3d 855, 241 Cal. Rptr. 175 (1st Dist. 1987) (holding a CUP is not personal but runs with the land). Case Note: The City had argued that any invalid portions of Measure R could be severed. The appellate court disagreed and concluded that Measure R was invalid. Eminent Domain— Property owner claims city inversely condemned his neighboring building through taking of parking lot City argues building was not inversely condemned because it retained some economic value and revenue source Citation: Barton v. City of Norwalk, 326 Conn. 139, 2017 WL 2806277 (2017) CONNECTICUT (07/04/17)—This case addressed the issue of whether a city inversely condemned a property owner's building when it took his neighboring parking lot by eminent domain. 8 © 2017 Thomson Reuters