Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/04/2018

Home

Zoning Bulletin December 25, 2017 I Volume 11 I Issue 24 Finally, the court also held that the BEOD Ordinance did not, as the Edwardses had argued, violate the Edwardses' vested rights to use the proper- ties for mobile homes. The court noted that since the City's zoning ordinance prohibited the expansion of nonconforming uses, the City's denial of the Edwardses' request to replace a mobile home on one of the 1973 lots was "not unconstitutional." As for the additional mobile homes that the Edwardses sought to place on the 1997 lots, the court concluded that the Edwardses had not acquired a vested right to put those mobile homes on those properties, as they did not own the property until after the BEOD Ordinance prohibition on mobile homes was adopted. The court explained that "vested rights to develop property in accordance with prior zoning are personal" and did not transfer to the Edwardses when they purchased the 1997 lots. Further, the court concluded that the City's grant of the 1997 rezone of the properties to R-MH designation did "not change th[at] result." The court said that the Edwardses could not have reasonably relied on that rezoning to erect mobile homes on the properties because the rezoning changed only the underlying zoning classification, and it did not change the BEOD Ordinance, which had always prohibited mobile home parks. See also: Gouge v. City of Snellville, 249 Ga. 91, 287 S.E.2d 539 (1982). Conditional Use —City grants conditional use permit for professional office use in residential zoning district Neighboring resident challenges the conditional use permit, arguing that accessible parking requirements were not met and use did not conform to character of the neighborhood as required Citation: Harrington v. City of Davis, 16 Cal. App. 5th 420, 224 Cal. Rptr: 3d 351 (3d Dist. 2017) CALIFORNIA (10/20/17)—This case addressed the issue of whether a city improperly issued a conditional use pennit for a professional office space use that failed to provide accessible parking. The Background/Facts: Catherine LeBlanc ("LeBlanc") and Christopher Sanborn ("Sanborn") owned real property (the "Property") in the City of Da- vis (the "City"). The Property was improved by a single family home, and was located in the City's "residential garden apartment" (R-3 or R-3-M) zoning district. In that zoning district, a variety of conditional uses could be permit- ted, including professional offices. The previous owner of the Property had obtained a building permit and conditional use permit ("CUP") authorizing use of the Property for profes- © 2017 Thomson Reuters 9