Court Opinion

ID: 9588315
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:32:49.866082+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:07.897498
License: Public Domain

MR. JUSTICE GROVES
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
My dissent is limited to the remand contained in the majority opinion. I would not compel the Garretts to file another application and recommence proceedings; rather, I would permit them after adequate notice to attempt to make a further showing to the City Council that categories R-3, R-4 and R-5 will not permit any reasonable use of the property. I would also permit them, if they so desired, to amend their application to request a zoning change to one of the intervening categories. Again, there should be adequate notice of any hearing thereunder.
While under the Littleton ordinance they may be able to file an application for rezoning immediately, I suspect that in some municipalities the ordinances require a relatively long waiting period between successive applications. If a person is being unconstitutionally deprived of his property, he should not be required to wait a long period of time for realization of his rights simply because he applied for the wrong category. Further, if they are entitled to a change, I see no need to have two or more proceedings until they apply for the correct category.