Laserfiche WebLink
<br />(0' <br /> <br />Z.B. <br /> <br />Deeemberl0;2006i-Page 5; <br /> <br />c <br /> <br />of review granted the variance. , <br />Demasi, a neighboring property Qwner, s.ued. He argued that the' variance' <br />should not have been granted" ," . 'J' - " ~i ' <br />DECISION:Re~edtoboard " <br />The case had to be returned to the board. <br />Under state law, the zoning boardh;;tdto iliclude in its review <all findings of <br />fact arid conclusions of law. <br />Here, the board's decision had Ito. refer~nce to the substantial testimony <br />presented at the hearing or an expl;;t1'iation of how the evidence' in the record <br />supported the conclusions reached. There was essentially no discussion of <br />any of the testimony presented or how itim~acted the board's decision. ' <br />The board's decision only stated the following findings: "the board was of <br />the opinion'... the relief requested wpuld not adversely affect the surrounding <br />area property value ... [did] no.t!.eSult frOlD. any self-created Action of the <br />applicant... would not result in fmancial gain to the applicant... would not alter <br />the general characteristics of tp.e surrounding~ea . .. [and was] th~ least relief <br />necessary." <br />Consequently, since the board failled to make the proper findings of fact, or <br />gi ve any hint as to why it made' thedecisiom it did, the court could make no <br />ruling in the case. Thus, the case had to beretumed to the. board so it could <br />clarify its decision. <br />see also: Lischio v. Zoning Board of Review of the Town of North Kingstown, <br />818 A.2d 685 (2003). <br /> <br />Appeal- Business and its presidentsue local government over denied <br />business license <br />County claims president cannot sue becausehe.has same claims as <br />business itself <br />Citation: City Limits of Northern Nevada Inc. v. County of Sacramento, U.S. Dist. <br />CaurtJor the Eastem Dist. afCalifornia, No. 2:06-cv-1244-GEB-GGH (2006) <br /> <br />CALIFORNIA (10/06/06) - In 1993, City LirnitsofNorthern Nevada Inc. began <br />operating an adult cabaret. McKibbin was president of the company. <br />Two years later, the county enacted a new zoning code section that re- <br />stricted the operation of sexually oriented lfusmesses to property designated <br />by the county. This new ordinance made thepperation of City .Limits unlawful <br />at its <)riginallocation. <br />For several years, City Limits continuep to apply for and receive yearly <br />renewals of its general business license. However, in 2005, the county denied <br />the application based on City Limitsr failure to comply with county zoning <br />ordinances. ", <br />City Limits and McKibbin sued0 The cqunty argued that McKibbin could <br /> <br />@ 2006 West, a Thomson business. Quinla~1J.fis a Thom~on West brand. Any reproduction is prohibited. <br /> <br />145 <br /> <br />