WordPress.com
Commercial Appraiser, #CRE, #CGREA,
Thanks!
Curtis D. Harris, BS, CGREA, REB
Bachelor of Science in Real Estate, CSULA
State Certified General Appraiser
Real Estate Broker
ASTM E-2018 Commercial Real Estate Inspector
HUD 203k Consultant
HUD/FHA Real Estate Appraiser/Reviewer
FannieMae REO ConsultantCTAC LEED CertificationThe Harris Company, Forensic Appraisers and Real Estate Consultants
*PIRS/Harris Company and the Science of Real Estate-Partners*630 North Sepulveda Boulevard, Suite 9A, Number 702
El Segundo, CA. 90245
310-337-1973 Office
310-251-3959 CellWebSite: http://www.harriscompanyrec.com Resume: http://www.harriscompanyrec.com/ CURRICULUMVITAENAME2011a.pdfCommercial Appraiser Blog: http://harriscompanyrec.com/blog/ The LOoP! a Google CSE: http://www.google.com/cse/home?cx=000747579154309164948%3Annakvu69iqy We Make a Simple Pledge to
Communicate, in a timely fashion, each appraisal, analysis, and opinion without bias or partiality
Abstain from behavior that is deleterious to our clients, the appraisal profession, and the public
Hold paramount the confidential nature of the appraiser/consultant - client relationship
and
Comply with the requirements of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice and the
Code of Professional Ethics of the National Society of Real Estate Appraisers
IT'S THE LAW- Statement 7: Prohibition Against Discrimination
State agencies should be aware that Title XI and the Agencies' regulations prohibit federally regulated financial institutions from excluding appraisers from consideration for an assignment by virtue of their membership, or lack of membership, in any appraisal organization. Federally regulated financial institutions should review the qualifications of appraisers to ensure that they are qualified for the assignment for which they are being considered. It is unacceptable to assume that an appraiser is qualified solely due to membership in, or designation from, an appraisal organization, or the lack thereof. The Agencies have determined that financial institutions' appraisal policies should not favor appraisers from one or more organizations or exclude individuals based on their lack of such membership. If a State agency learns that a certified or licensed appraiser allegedly has been a victim of such discrimination, the State agency should inform the Agency which has regulatory authority over the involved financial institution. INCLUDING THE APPRAISAL INSTITUTE-MAICONFIDENTIALITY/PRIVILEGE NOTICE: This transmission and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee. The information contained in this transmission is confidential in nature and protected from further use or disclosure under U.S. Pub. L. 106-102, 113 U.S. Stat. 1338 (1999), and may be subject to consultant/appraiser-client or other legal privilege. Your use or disclosure of this information for any purpose other than that intended by its transmittal is strictly prohibited and may subject you to fines and/or penalties under federal and state law. If you are not the intended recipient of this transmission, please destroy all copies received and confirm destruction to the sender via return transmittal
From: LAW OF THE LAND [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 4:40 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [New post] AZ Supreme Court Hold Party Is Not Required to Exhaust Administrative Remedies When Such Pursuit is Futile and Remands to Lower Court to Determine Whether Entire Manufactured Home Park or Only Each Space is Entitled to Nonconforming Status
Patricia Salkin posted: "Stagecoach Trails MHC, LLC (“Stagecoach”) operated a 50-space manufactured home park in Benson, Arizona. In 1998, the City amended its zoning regulations, increasing the size and setback requirements for spaces in a manufactured home park. Although it was"
Respond to this post by replying above this line
New post on LAW OF THE LAND AZ Supreme Court Hold Party Is Not Required to Exhaust Administrative Remedies When Such Pursuit is Futile and Remands to Lower Court to Determine Whether Entire Manufactured Home Park or Only Each Space is Entitled to Nonconforming Statusby Patricia Salkin
Stagecoach Trails MHC, LLC (“Stagecoach”) operated a 50-space manufactured home park in Benson, Arizona. In 1998, the City amended its zoning regulations, increasing the size and setback requirements for spaces in a manufactured home park. Although it was not going to be applied retroactively, the City maintained that it would apply the new regulations when individual homes were replaced. Municipal zoning regulations are subject to A.R.S. § 9–462.02(A), which provides that “[n]othing in [such regulations] shall affect existing property or the right to its continued use for the purpose used at the time the ... regulation takes effect, nor to any reasonable repairs or alterations in buildings or property used for such existing purpose.” However, the right to continue a nonconforming use does not permit another use inconsistent with zoning regulations.After one of the spaces in the park became vacant, Stagecoach sought a permit to install another manufactured home there. The permit was denied because the proposed plan would not conform to the new regulations, as required by section 16. Stagecoach appealed to the City’s Board of Adjustment (“BOA”) and argued that the entire park, as a non-conforming use under A.R.S. § 9–462.02(A), was entitled to replace a home without sacrificing its non-conforming status. The BOA rejected this argument and sided with the City, claiming that the particular, vacant space was the non-conforming use, not the park as a whole.Stagecoach then sought a declaratory judgment with the superior court, asking it to declare section 16 invalid and to direct the zoning administrator to grant the permit. Stagecoach also argued that even if section 16 was valid, the regulation did not apply because the park was a non-conforming use under § 9–462.02(A). While this action was pending, the City repealed section 16 stating that it had not been properly adopted, and considered this situation independent of a section 16 analysis. Even still, the City denied the permit because the new space still would not conform to the setback requirements for the R-3 District. Stagecoach then filed a supplemental special action complaint challenging the denial of the permit on these new grounds and asked to court again to command the zoning administrator to issue the permit. This time the court agreed and ordered the City to issue the permit, characterizing the order as equitable relief in the nature of a mandamus. Additionally, the court of appeals noted that the BOA had not decided whether the newly vacant space would have been a legal use before the adoption of the amended section 16, and because of this the trial court did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate this issue because this issue had not been administratively exhausted. The appellate court, on appeal, reversed the decision, and Stagecoach appealed to the Supreme Court of Arizona which granted the petition.The court reiterated the established principle that a party must exhaust all available administrative remedies before appealing to the court. As such, “trial courts generally lack jurisdiction to review challenges to a zoning administrator's decision that have not been appealed to the board of adjustment.” However, a complainant is not required to exhaust all remedies when the pursuit of administrative remedies is futile. Following this rule, the Supreme Court agreed with the trial court that Stagecoach did not have to appeal to the BOA when the zoning administrator reaffirmed his previous denial of the permit. While Stagecoach and the City differed on many issues, each consistently identified the central issue: whether the park as a whole was the nonconforming use and the vacant space was just a continuation of that nonconformity, or whether each space within the park was a particular nonconforming use.Stagecoach had not argued that the new home on the vacant space would comply with the R-3 setback requirements, but instead argued that this is irrelevant because the entire park is the nonconforming use and replacing individual homes is a continuation of such nonconforming use and does not alter its nonconforming status. The City, in contrast, argued that the spaces are the nonconforming uses and building a new home there must meet current zoning requirements. However, the City never argued that if the park is in fact the nonconforming use, “replacing an individual home would alter the use and subject the park, and each space, to current zoning regulations.”The BOA agreed with the City that the individual spaces were the nonconforming uses and therefore each new house had to meet the current zoning regulations. Stagecoach challenged this conclusion in the trial court. Once the City determined that the new amendments to section 16 were invalid, it reaffirmed the denial of a permit on the theory that, because the spaces were the nonconforming uses, the R-3 District requirements such as setbacks apply to the new homes. It would have been futile for Stagecoach to appeal again, because the BOA already rejected its arguments that the vacant space was not subject to these requirements. Therefore, the trial court had jurisdiction over the action because, even though administrative remedies were not fully exhausted, pursuing them would be futile. The case was remanded to the court of appeals to decide whether the entire park or only each space is entitled to nonconforming use status.Stagecoach Trails MHC, L.L.C. v. City of Benson, 295 P.3d 943, 947 (Ariz. 3/1/2013).The opinion can be accessed at: http://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/0/OpinionFiles/Supreme/2013/CV-12-0241-PR.pdf
Patricia Salkin | March 27, 2013 at 7:38 am | Categories: Current Caselaw, Non-Conforming Uses | URL: http://wp.me/p64kE-1TD
Comment See all comments Like Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions. Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://lawoftheland.wordpress.com/2013/03/27/az-supreme-court-hold-party-is-not-required-to-exhaust-administrative-remedies-when-such-pursuit-is-futile-and-remands-to-lower-court-to-determine-whether-entire-manufactured-home-park-or-only-each-sp/
Thanks for flying with WordPress.com
Commercial Appraiser, #CRE, #CGREA,
Thanks!
Curtis D. Harris, BS, CGREA, REB
Bachelor of Science in Real Estate, CSULA
State Certified General Appraiser
Real Estate Broker
ASTM E-2018 Commercial Real Estate Inspector
HUD 203k Consultant
HUD/FHA Real Estate Appraiser/Reviewer
FannieMae REO ConsultantCTAC LEED CertificationThe Harris Company, Forensic Appraisers and Real Estate Consultants
*PIRS/Harris Company and the Science of Real Estate-Partners*630 North Sepulveda Boulevard, Suite 9A, Number 702
El Segundo, CA. 90245
310-337-1973 Office
310-251-3959 CellWebSite: http://www.harriscompanyrec.com Resume: http://www.harriscompanyrec.com/ CURRICULUMVITAENAME2011a.pdfCommercial Appraiser Blog: http://harriscompanyrec.com/blog/ The LOoP! a Google CSE: http://www.google.com/cse/home?cx=000747579154309164948%3Annakvu69iqy We Make a Simple Pledge to
Communicate, in a timely fashion, each appraisal, analysis, and opinion without bias or partiality
Abstain from behavior that is deleterious to our clients, the appraisal profession, and the public
Hold paramount the confidential nature of the appraiser/consultant - client relationship
and
Comply with the requirements of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice and the
Code of Professional Ethics of the National Society of Real Estate Appraisers
IT'S THE LAW- Statement 7: Prohibition Against Discrimination
State agencies should be aware that Title XI and the Agencies' regulations prohibit federally regulated financial institutions from excluding appraisers from consideration for an assignment by virtue of their membership, or lack of membership, in any appraisal organization. Federally regulated financial institutions should review the qualifications of appraisers to ensure that they are qualified for the assignment for which they are being considered. It is unacceptable to assume that an appraiser is qualified solely due to membership in, or designation from, an appraisal organization, or the lack thereof. The Agencies have determined that financial institutions' appraisal policies should not favor appraisers from one or more organizations or exclude individuals based on their lack of such membership. If a State agency learns that a certified or licensed appraiser allegedly has been a victim of such discrimination, the State agency should inform the Agency which has regulatory authority over the involved financial institution. INCLUDING THE APPRAISAL INSTITUTE-MAICONFIDENTIALITY/PRIVILEGE NOTICE: This transmission and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee. The information contained in this transmission is confidential in nature and protected from further use or disclosure under U.S. Pub. L. 106-102, 113 U.S. Stat. 1338 (1999), and may be subject to consultant/appraiser-client or other legal privilege. Your use or disclosure of this information for any purpose other than that intended by its transmittal is strictly prohibited and may subject you to fines and/or penalties under federal and state law. If you are not the intended recipient of this transmission, please destroy all copies received and confirm destruction to the sender via return transmittal
From: LAW OF THE LAND [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 4:40 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [New post] AZ Supreme Court Hold Party Is Not Required to Exhaust Administrative Remedies When Such Pursuit is Futile and Remands to Lower Court to Determine Whether Entire Manufactured Home Park or Only Each Space is Entitled to Nonconforming Status
Patricia Salkin posted: "Stagecoach Trails MHC, LLC (“Stagecoach”) operated a 50-space manufactured home park in Benson, Arizona. In 1998, the City amended its zoning regulations, increasing the size and setback requirements for spaces in a manufactured home park. Although it was"
Respond to this post by replying above this line
New post on LAW OF THE LAND AZ Supreme Court Hold Party Is Not Required to Exhaust Administrative Remedies When Such Pursuit is Futile and Remands to Lower Court to Determine Whether Entire Manufactured Home Park or Only Each Space is Entitled to Nonconforming Statusby Patricia Salkin
Stagecoach Trails MHC, LLC (“Stagecoach”) operated a 50-space manufactured home park in Benson, Arizona. In 1998, the City amended its zoning regulations, increasing the size and setback requirements for spaces in a manufactured home park. Although it was not going to be applied retroactively, the City maintained that it would apply the new regulations when individual homes were replaced. Municipal zoning regulations are subject to A.R.S. § 9–462.02(A), which provides that “[n]othing in [such regulations] shall affect existing property or the right to its continued use for the purpose used at the time the ... regulation takes effect, nor to any reasonable repairs or alterations in buildings or property used for such existing purpose.” However, the right to continue a nonconforming use does not permit another use inconsistent with zoning regulations.After one of the spaces in the park became vacant, Stagecoach sought a permit to install another manufactured home there. The permit was denied because the proposed plan would not conform to the new regulations, as required by section 16. Stagecoach appealed to the City’s Board of Adjustment (“BOA”) and argued that the entire park, as a non-conforming use under A.R.S. § 9–462.02(A), was entitled to replace a home without sacrificing its non-conforming status. The BOA rejected this argument and sided with the City, claiming that the particular, vacant space was the non-conforming use, not the park as a whole.Stagecoach then sought a declaratory judgment with the superior court, asking it to declare section 16 invalid and to direct the zoning administrator to grant the permit. Stagecoach also argued that even if section 16 was valid, the regulation did not apply because the park was a non-conforming use under § 9–462.02(A). While this action was pending, the City repealed section 16 stating that it had not been properly adopted, and considered this situation independent of a section 16 analysis. Even still, the City denied the permit because the new space still would not conform to the setback requirements for the R-3 District. Stagecoach then filed a supplemental special action complaint challenging the denial of the permit on these new grounds and asked to court again to command the zoning administrator to issue the permit. This time the court agreed and ordered the City to issue the permit, characterizing the order as equitable relief in the nature of a mandamus. Additionally, the court of appeals noted that the BOA had not decided whether the newly vacant space would have been a legal use before the adoption of the amended section 16, and because of this the trial court did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate this issue because this issue had not been administratively exhausted. The appellate court, on appeal, reversed the decision, and Stagecoach appealed to the Supreme Court of Arizona which granted the petition.The court reiterated the established principle that a party must exhaust all available administrative remedies before appealing to the court. As such, “trial courts generally lack jurisdiction to review challenges to a zoning administrator's decision that have not been appealed to the board of adjustment.” However, a complainant is not required to exhaust all remedies when the pursuit of administrative remedies is futile. Following this rule, the Supreme Court agreed with the trial court that Stagecoach did not have to appeal to the BOA when the zoning administrator reaffirmed his previous denial of the permit. While Stagecoach and the City differed on many issues, each consistently identified the central issue: whether the park as a whole was the nonconforming use and the vacant space was just a continuation of that nonconformity, or whether each space within the park was a particular nonconforming use.Stagecoach had not argued that the new home on the vacant space would comply with the R-3 setback requirements, but instead argued that this is irrelevant because the entire park is the nonconforming use and replacing individual homes is a continuation of such nonconforming use and does not alter its nonconforming status. The City, in contrast, argued that the spaces are the nonconforming uses and building a new home there must meet current zoning requirements. However, the City never argued that if the park is in fact the nonconforming use, “replacing an individual home would alter the use and subject the park, and each space, to current zoning regulations.”The BOA agreed with the City that the individual spaces were the nonconforming uses and therefore each new house had to meet the current zoning regulations. Stagecoach challenged this conclusion in the trial court. Once the City determined that the new amendments to section 16 were invalid, it reaffirmed the denial of a permit on the theory that, because the spaces were the nonconforming uses, the R-3 District requirements such as setbacks apply to the new homes. It would have been futile for Stagecoach to appeal again, because the BOA already rejected its arguments that the vacant space was not subject to these requirements. Therefore, the trial court had jurisdiction over the action because, even though administrative remedies were not fully exhausted, pursuing them would be futile. The case was remanded to the court of appeals to decide whether the entire park or only each space is entitled to nonconforming use status.Stagecoach Trails MHC, L.L.C. v. City of Benson, 295 P.3d 943, 947 (Ariz. 3/1/2013).The opinion can be accessed at: http://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/0/OpinionFiles/Supreme/2013/CV-12-0241-PR.pdf
Patricia Salkin | March 27, 2013 at 7:38 am | Categories: Current Caselaw, Non-Conforming Uses | URL: http://wp.me/p64kE-1TD
Comment See all comments Like Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions. Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://lawoftheland.wordpress.com/2013/03/27/az-supreme-court-hold-party-is-not-required-to-exhaust-administrative-remedies-when-such-pursuit-is-futile-and-remands-to-lower-court-to-determine-whether-entire-manufactured-home-park-or-only-each-sp/
Thanks for flying with WordPress.com
commercial appraiser, commercial appraisal, commercial appraiser la
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.