Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/04/2007

Home

Page 4 - Special Issue: Biweekly Edition Z.B. First, the court determined Warren was deprived of. a property. right.. The right of access was especially important fora business abutting apubl1c ~treet. A landowner's property interest was infringed upon even when the' govem~ ment blocked off only part of the property's access to public roads. Furthermore, Warren bore the sole burden of the barriers placed by the city. The court found it was evident that the city deprived Warren of a property interest by erecting barricades across one of the two l11eans of acc$ss:to his Dairy Queen. . .' . The court also concluded that Warren received notice but nohea.rj.ng. Gov- ernmental determinations of a general nature that affected all people equlilly did not give rise to..a due process right to be heard. However, when a irelatively small number of people were affected on individual grounds, the right toa hearing was triggered. The city's action clearly resulted in an individualized impact on'a specific individual, and prompted the right to a hearing. see also: Montgomery v. Carter County, 226 F.3d 758 (2000). see also: Tri-Corp Management Co.. v. Praznik, 33 Fed.Appx. 742(2002).. City initiates change in permit status Property owners claim change violates their due process rights Citation: Makdessian v. City of Mountain View, 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 03-17325 The 9th U.S. Circuit has jurisdiction over Alaska, Arizona, Califomia, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. CALIFORNIA _ Sinkiewicz owned a piece of residential property, which he leased to the Makdessians. A few months after leasing the property, the Makdessians received a conditional use permit from the city allo",ing them to run an automobile repair shop on the residential lot. The neighbqrs were dis- pleased with the permit, so they complained to the city. In response to the numerous complaints, the, city sent a ~et~er to the Makdessians advising them to correct all violations of the municipal code and to correct all conditions of their permit. Fueled by continued neig1i.bot qom- plaints, the city went a step further and scheduled a permit revoc~tion h~aring a few months later. The zoning administrator at the hearing imposed greater restrictions on the exis~g permit and thereby the Qusiness. The Makdessians appealed to the city council andcontilfupd ~o operate under the conditions of the initial unaltered permit. While th~ a,ppea1 was still pending, Sinkiewicz stepped in and aqvised theqity that the Makdessians would be vacating the premises in a couple of !:montl1s.EFur- ther, he requested that the pending appeal to the city council, be sent back to the zoning administrator. Although this violated a city ordinance, the city' @2006 West, a Thomson business. Quinlan ™ is a Thomson West brand. Any reproduction is prOhibited. 160 f \.. . , I I i I I \ f { \,