Court Opinion

ID: 9516349
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 23:40:59.027976+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:34:50.329360
License: Public Domain

SCHUDSON, J.
(concurring). I agree with the majority's conclusion on the calculation method issue, but I am concerned that the majority's brief commentary on the convenience issue will cause considerable confusion.
. The majority "instruct[s] the trial court to consider these factors in making its factual determination regarding exactly what land is necessary for the convenience of each building or group of buildings." Majority op. at 796-97. Unfortunately, the majority fails to identify "these factors." Instead, the majority names three items — setbacks, density requirements, and landscaping — that are not necéssary for convenience, and then adds "etc." to the list. This offers little if any guidance to trial courts.
Moreover, in commenting on whether zoning laws provide "absolute authority" "in determining exactly what land is necessary for each building's convenience," majority op. at 795, the majority offers analysis that is, at best, cursory and unclear.
*798The majority rejects the City's argument that land necessarily is "convenient" to a building if zoning laws require its use. The majority, however, fails to identify any flaw in the City's argument. If, for example, a zoning law requires a property owner to utilize certain land for a setback, then is not that land "convenient" to the building? Indeed, that setback would be essential to the very existence of the building because, under the zoning law, the property owner would not be allowed to construct the building unless he or she also "consumed" the land required for the setback. Thus, the City has offered a logical argument that although land in addition to the land required by zoning may also be "convenient" to a building, at a minimum, the land consumed by zoning requirements is "convenient" to a building.