Stolman

Stolman v. City of Los Angeles

Good Law
114 Cal. App. 4th 916·2003 Cal. App. LEXIS 1954·2004 Daily Journal DAR 22·8 Cal. Rptr. 3d 178·2004 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 30
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 30, 2003B164169California5,337 words

Opinion

Opinion

Vogel, J.

INTRODUCTION

This appeal concerns the issuance of a variance to permit a nonconforming use. The variance issued by the City of Los Angeles (City) would permit Brian Clark, the owner of Canyon Service and Detail, a gasoline station located in a residential zone which has a nonconforming use, to expand the station’s existing operations to include an automobile detailing service. After the zoning administrator granted the variance and her findings were affirmed by the area planning commission and the City Council, appellant, Theodore Stolman, filed a petition for writ of mandamus, seeking to overturn the granting of the variance.

The superior court denied the writ petition. Stolman appeals, contending that the variance should not be granted because Clark failed to meet two of the five requirements for the granting of a variance. He asserts that there is no showing of hardship. Stolman further contends that Clark has not shown that he is deprived of a use afforded to other properties in the same zone and vicinity. We agree. We conclude that the zoning administrator abused her discretion in granting the variance, because the above two findings were not justified based on the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.