Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/29/2002

Home

July 25, 2002 -- Page 5 of the zoning ordinance. Here, the wood recycling operation was determined to be "industhal." DECISION: Re~'ersed. The lower court had to decide whether the Greens reasonably relied upon the cit-y's actions when they built their operation. Under certain Circumstances, the Greens could successfully assert the city was equitably estopped from gaini,g injunctive relief, even if the Greens relied on an. action by the development director that is deemed to be improper or illegal. The matter was remanded back to the superior court. Citation: City of Fresno v. Green, Court of Apperzt of California, 5th App. Dist., F057459 .(2002). see also: Ci~.' of Long Beach v. MansetI, 476 P. 2d 423 (]970). see alsO: Ci~. of Imperial Beach v. Atgerz, ]9 Cal. Rprr. ]'44 (1970). Special Use Permit -- Manufactured homes could not exceed 25 percent of housing in .proposed ddstr~,icts Owner seeks special pervr, it for land outside the district NEW YORK (06/14/02) Morgan challenged a recent amendment to the Code of West Bloomfield that restricted the growth of manufactured home development. The amendment created three manu:[acmred districts and pro- vided "at no time shall the number of housing units in manufactured home parks exceed 25 percent of all single family dwellings situated on privately owned lots." ,. Morgan's property, was located outside the proposed districts in a "rural- a.m-icu.ltural area" where residential uses could "only be permitted at very low densities." The area also had "prime agzicultural land" where such develop- 'ment was further restr/cted. Morgan challenged the validity of the amendment and claimed be'was eh, titled to apply for a spec/al use permit. Both Morgan and the town asked the court for judgment without a trial and were denied. Both appealedl DECISION: Judgment granted. The court ganted judgment in 'the town's favor. There was a strong presumption the amendment was valid, and this pre- sumption could only be overcome by proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the amendment was um'easonable and arbitrary.. The court found no such evidence, nor did the court fred evidence of exclusionary zoning. Here,' manufactured home parks continued as a permitted use in the town. Finally, the court rejected ~..e argument that the plaintiffs are entitled 'to apply for a special use permit. The court noted that ~'entitlement to a special use pe~rnit is not a matter of right." C~tarion: Morgcm and Filippo v. Town of West Bloomfield? 6.24, CA 01- o~,~preme Court o~'New York, Appeilare Oivi,rio~, 4t½z Deparrm. en~. see also: Prebie Aggregczre v. Tow~ of Preb[e. 6'94 N, Y. 2d 788. - - 121