Court Opinion

ID: 9553995
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 19:39:01.710709+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:32:43.557433
License: Public Domain

GERBER, Presiding Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
Although I concur with the majority’s result, I write separately to express my concerns regarding (1) the notion that section 7(d) ought to create a rebuttable presumption of abandonment and (2) the notion that even involuntary cessation of use is effective to terminate a non-conforming use.
Proof of abandonment generates subjective statements of personal intent; such intent has no place in what should be an objective zoning determination. The property owner’s intent ought to be irrelevant so long as the owner has voluntarily ceased the nonconforming use for the specified period. County of Isanti, 469 N.W.2d at 470; Hartley, 764 P.2d at 1223; Texas Nat’l Theatres, 639 P.2d at 574. Several courts have recognized the temptation of self-serving statements and *242perjury inherent in abandonment testimony. Villari, 649 A.2d at 101; Hartley, 764 P.2d at 1223. Objective standards reduce these dangers by obviating testimony of abandonment. A zoning authority or court can well base its determination solely on a finding that the owner voluntarily ceased a nonconforming use for a statutory period, without inquiry into the owner’s intent to abandon.
Secondly, the majority’s result punishes owners who have involuntarily ceased their nonconforming use due to circumstances beyond their control. A property owner who involuntarily ceases his nonconforming use should not lose his nonconforming use. County of Isanti, 469 N.W.2d at 470; Texas Nat’l Theatres, 639 P.2d at 574. A government’s efforts to eliminate nonconforming uses, however well-intentioned, must comport with basic concepts of fairness, Rotter, 169 Ariz. at 272, 818 P.2d at 707, which in my view requires voluntary cessation.
The record here does not demonstrate those principles. The City of Glendale welded and padlocked the door to Foxy’s and posted a warning that entry to the premises was a potential felony. Aldabbagh can hardly be said to have ceased his nonconforming use voluntarily. I join with the majority in this result but not regarding the need for abandonment testimony.