Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/05/2005

Home

March 25, 2005 ~ Page 5 Hill sued, requesting a writ of mandate, that is, a court order forcing the city to correct its prior action of issuing an after-the-fact permit. The court ruled in the city's favor. Hill appealed, arguing that the city should' be compelled to rescind Mart's after-the-fact permit. " DECISION: Affirmed. The expanded garage did not violate the city's zoning scheme. Conse- quently, Hill was not entitled to a writ of mandate. · In general, a traditional writ of mandate compelled-the holder of an office, trust, or station to perform a specific act. Importantly, the compelled duty had to be ministerial or mandatory in nature. ' Under the zoning code, additions, alterations, or enlargements of noncon- fi)truing structures were not identified as events that caused a structure to lose its nonconforming status. Consequently, nonconforming structures were allowed to continue unless they were destroyed or replaced to a specified degree.' Contrary to what Hill alleged, the city did not have a ministerial duty to rescind the permit and enforce the setback requirement because Mart's garage did not lose its nonconforming status by virtue of the expansion. Therefore, the garage did not violate the city's zoning scheme, and the city was not'required to take any action. xee also: Car.yon Harbor Village Ltd. v. City of Carson Mobilehome Park Rental Review Board, 70 Cal. App. 4th 28J (1999). .~'ee aLs'o: Rodriguer~ v. Sotis,. 1 Cal. App. 4th 495 (1991). Variance -- Permits and variance denied based on preserving city's skyline Developer claims loss of condominium project a hardship Citation: One Meridian Partners LLP v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of City of Philadelphia, Commonwealth Co~rr of Pennsylvania, No: 866 C.D. 2004 (2005) PENNS YLVAxX~IA (02/01/05) -- Mariner Commercial Properties Inc. wanted to build a luxury condominium near Philadelphia's City Hall. Mariner's initial appli- cation was refused because the proposal was not in compliance with height,- door-area ratio, lot coverage, curb-cut width, and parking regulations. Mariner appealed to the Zoning Board of Adjustment of the City of Phila- delphia. The board granted the necessary variances and permits. A neighboring property owner sued, and the court ruled in its favor. The c~mrt found the city had a bona fide interest in protecting its skyline, and Mariner's proposal would damage that interest. Mariner appealed, arguing the city's skyline interest did not outweigh the hardship it would suffer if the permits a. nd variances were not granted. DEC ISION: Affirmed, The protection and enhancement of Philadelphia's skyline was in the best 2005 Quinlan Publishing Group, Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048. 107