We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. Learn more here.Close Me
An action challenging a legislative body's decision to deny
a zone change is subject to a 90-day limitation period set forth in
section 65009(c) of the California Planning and Zoning Law (Cal.
Gov. Code §§ 65000 et seq.). In June, 2009,
General Development Co., L.P., filed for a zone change on property
in the City of Santa Maria (the City). On February 16, 2010, the
City Council denied the application. The developer challenged the
City Council's action 97 days after the City Council's
denial. The trial court ruled that the developer's challenge
was time-barred by section 65009(c)(1)(B) of the Government Code,
which requires an action or proceeding "to attack, review, set
aside, void, or annul [a] decision . . . to adopt or amend a zoning
ordinance" to be filed and served within 90 days of such
decision. The Court of Appeal agreed.
General Development argued in its appeal that denial of a
rezoning application was not a "decision" because City
did not "adopt or amend a zoning ordinance" within the
meaning of section 65009. It claimed that the 90-day limitation
period applied only to a "decision" granting a zone
change, not "decisions" denying a zone change, and
asserted that a three-year statute of limitation should apply.
The Court of Appeal disagreed, ruling that the word
"decision" is broad and includes grants and denials. To
read the wording in the narrow way suggested by General
Development, said the court, would be contrary to the stated
legislative goal of providing "certainty for property owners
and local governments regarding decisions made pursuant to this
division." (§ 65009(a)(3).) There should not be a
three-year "cloud" hanging over the property that could
inhibit the free alienation and use of land; that, said the court,
would be poor land use law.
Neither the content on this blog nor any transmissions between
you and Sheppard Mullin through this blog are intended to provide
legal or other advice or to create an attorney-client
relationship.
In communicating with us through this blog, you should not provide
any confidential information to us concerning any potential or
actual legal matter you may have. Before providing any such
information to us, you must obtain approval to do so from one of
our lawyers.
By choosing to communicate with us without such prior approval,
you understand and agree that Sheppard Mullin will have no duty to
keep confidential any information you provide.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
The New York State Department of Taxation and Finance, Office of Counsel, Advisory Opinion Unit recently issued an opinion concerning the application of sales tax.
The Georgia Real Estate Appraisers Board recently adopted its final regulations regarding standards for developing and reporting an "evaluation appraisal."
Earlier this month, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that a property owner in Mississippi agreed to pay $27,000 to settle a lawsuit involving allegations of discrimination under the Fair Housing Act (FHA).
Just yesterday, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issues new guidance which reaffirms that the Fair Housing Act’s (FHA’s) requirement that multifamily housing be designed and constructed so as to be accessible to persons with disabilities.
One of the communities hardest hit by Hurricane Sandy is preparing to use eminent domain to take easements from oceanfront homeowners who are holding up a beach replenishment project, according to the Newark Star-Ledger.
