Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/06/2018

Home

Zoning Bulletin November 10, 2018 I Volume 12 I Issue 21 Finally, the court also rejected the Corkerys' argument that the ZBA misinterpreted the scope of the variance standard one. Again, that stan- dard required a variance applicant show the existence of "exception or extraordinary physical circumstances of the subject property." The Corkerys contended that they satisfied that standard because their home was expanded to substantially exceed the lot coverage limitation long before they purchased it. They reasoned that because the home was part of the "property," "circumstances relating to the home, such as exces- sive lot coverage, constitute[d] extraordinary circumstances of the `property.' " The court disagreed. It found that "the plain text of standard one along with other sections of the variance provision indicate that the required `exceptional or extraordinary physical circumstances of the subject property' include only physical features of the land itself." Thus, the court concluded that standard one was intended to encompass "[p]eculiarities of the specific property" that "arise from the physical conditions of the land itself which distinguish it from other land in the general area." The excessive lot coverage of the Corkerys' home did not constitute such a circumstance and therefore did not satisfy standard one, found the court. See also: City and Borough of Juneau v. Thibodeau, 595 P.2d 626 (Alaska 1979) (disavowed by, State v. Alex, 646 P.2d 203 (Alaska 1982)). See also: Jackson v. Kenai Peninsula Borough for Use and Benefit of City of Kenai, 733 P.2d 1038, 73 A.L.R.4th 857 (Alaska 1987). Rezoning City creates new subzone applicable only to proposed superstore Community associations challenge new subzone as impermissible spot zoning Citation: Citizens Coalition Los Angeles v. City of Los Angeles, 26 Cal. App. 5th 561, 237 Cal. Rptr. 3d 313 (2d Dist. 2018) CALIFORNIA (09/13/18)—This case addressed the issue of whether the creation of a new zoning subarea amounted to impermissible spot zoning. The Background/Facts: Target Corporation ("Target") applied to the City Council of the City of Los Angeles (the "City" or "City Council") to build a Super Target retail store (the "Superstore"). Target sought to build the three-story, 163,862 square -foot Superstore in an area subzoned as "Subarea C." The proposed Superstore exceeded certain zoning © 2018 Thomson Reuters 9