Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/02/2006

Home

.( Z.B. December 10, 2005 -- Page 3 the same opportunity. The board claimed that it did not have the authority or discretion to permit anyone to operate such a large daycare center in a residential zone, and the local zoning ordinance supported this contention. Consequently, the church could not prove it suffered any discrimination. see also: Grace United Methodist Church v. City of Cheyenne, 235 F. Supp.2d 1186 (20O2). see also: Keys Youth Services Inc: v. City of Olathe, 248 E3d 1267 (2001). Appeal -- Bus terminal property in two zones Bus loading going on in zone that doesn't allow it Citation: Greyhound Lines Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, Court of Appeal of California, 2nd App. Dist., Div. 7, No. B178744 (2005) CALIFORNIA (10/26/05) -- Greyhound Lines Inc. wanted to remodel a retail property into a bus terminal. The land the building was located on was C2 (commercial), wh/ch permitted the operation of a bus terminal. The land immedi- ately surrounding the building, which could accommodate two buses, was classified P (automobile parking zone).The loading and unloading of bus pas- sengers was not allowed in the P zone. The Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety issued a building permit and a certificate of occupancy. However, when it discovered that pas- sengers were being loaded and unloaded in the P-zoned portion of the prop- erty, it revoked both documents. Greyhound sued, and the court ruled m favor of the city. Greyhound appealed. It argued revocation was improper because the termi- nal building, where passengers buy tickets and walt for buses, was located in a C2 zone that allowed bus terminals. Greyhound contended that the department should have issued an order to comply to stop passenger loading on the P- zoned portion of the property, rather than revoke the permits. DECISION: A fflrmed. It was well within the department's authority to determine that the most appropriate action was to revoke both documents rather than issuing an order to comply. The department was not obligated to split the bus terminal use into its component paris and separately evaluate the activity in each zone. The code provided that permits granted in error were void and could be revoked. Because the code did not allow the loading and unloading of bus passengers in a P zone, the department was authorized to revoke the previously ~anted permits. see al,'o: Stolman v. Ci~ of Los Angeles, 114 Cal. App.4th 916 (2003). see aIxo: Hassan v. Mercy American River Hospital, 3] Cal. 4th 709 (2003). © 2005 Quinlae Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048. 125