ACAA Case Studies
Frank Cassidy & Andrew McGuire
2016 ACAA Summer Conference
Scenario 1: Snake in the weeds
 Developer owns 20-acre site zoned SFR (4 DU/AC); seeks rezoning to allow 360
apartments (18 DU/AC)
 Staff recommends approval subject to a condition requiring construction of a decel
lane that is required by the traffic studies; the catch: there is an SRP tower
encroaching into City ROW that must be moved to construct decel lane
 Developer fights staff on the condition, argues SRP tower makes the decel lane an
unfair burden for the apartment complex, but ultimately accepts the condition of
rezoning
 The City Council Rezones the property subject to the rezoning condition, and
developer says nothing about the condition at the rezoning hearing
Scenario 1: Snake in the weeds
 31 days after the rezoning is approved, developer sells the property with a clause
requiring the developer to pay for the tower relocation if the new buyer is forced
to move it to get permits
 City staff refuses to issue permits for the apartment project unless and until the
decel lane is built (and the tower moved)
 Developer sues the city for an illegal exaction
 This happened prior to Prop 207; would a 207 waiver save the City from the taking
(unconstitutional exaction) claim?
 Don’t forget the extremely broad Koontz language; Court would not distinguish cases where the City
could choose not to grant the “benefit”
Scenario 2: Translational zoning
 Developer owns a 40-acre parcel zoned “CB-2 General Business zone” in Pima





County
The property owner signs an annexation petition for Marana to annex the property
Marana’s most similar zoning category is “VC Village Commercial”
Marana VC zoning doesn’t allow apartments and hotels; County CB-2 zoning does
Marana adopts annexation ordinance including original Marana zoning of VC
After annexation is effective, developer submits a development plan for a hotel
Scenario 3: Granny-flat variance
 John Smith owns a home on one acre in a zone where the minimum lot size is
36,000 sf
 The zoning allows only a single dwelling unit, and prohibits bedrooms or cooking
facilities in any building other than the primary structure (i.e., the home)
 Smith requests a variance for an accessory building with a bedroom and a small
kitchen for his ailing 88-year old mother
 Nobody appears in opposition to the variance, and the board of adjustment passes a
motion to approve it
Scenario 3: Granny-flat variance
 After the Board of Adjustment meeting adjourns, four of the five members remain
in their seats, chatting
 The Board’s Chair turns to you and says the applicant is the brother of the Board
Member who is no longer in the meeting room
 One of the other Board members says to the rest: “We shouldn’t have granted that
variance. Since enough of us are still here, let’s reopen the meeting and fix our
mistake”
Scenario 4: Major routes dedication
 Developer owns a 160-acre parcel along 124th St, a two-lane road in a 60-foot
right-of-way
 The City’s “Major Streets & Routes Map” (incorporated into the general plan)
shows 124th Street as a future major arterial six-lane roadway in a 250-foot rightof-way
 Developer seeks to rezone the property from 1RAC to 2RAC
 The rezoning is approved, subject to a condition requiring Developer to dedicate
upon demand an additional 95-foot strip of land along 124th Street—the ultimate
half right-of-way width
Scenario 4: Major routes dedication
 18 months after the rezoning is approved, City demands Developer’s dedication of
the 95-foot strip of right-of-way for its 124th Street project
 Developer is not yet ready to develop and refuses to make the dedication
 City engineers insist upon moving forward with the project
 How do you get the property?
Scenario 5: Administrative zoning relief
 City establishes an administrative process allowing the Planning Director to issue
building height and setback variances in certain circumstances
 Landowner requests a setback variance and contends that the circumstances meet
the requirements of the administrative process
 The Planning Director disagrees and refuses to grant the variance
 Landowner files a lawsuit challenging the Planning Director’s decision
Scenario 6: Neighborhood cell tower
 Provider files an application for a 180-foot communications tower in a residential





area
City’s zoning code allows towers upon City Council issuance of a C.U.P.
The C.U.P. is in the discretion of the City Council—the zoning code lists no
standards
Provider submits technical reports showing a service gap without this tower
HOA holds a meeting to discuss the HOA’s position; four City Council members
(of seven) attend
HOA President attends Council meeting re C.U.P.; submits HOA’s position that
the tower will cause cancer and reduce the value of homes in the area
Scenario 7: Rezoning violates CC&Rs
 Developer seeks rezoning of 40 acres from one home per 3.3 acres to one home
per acre
 Neighboring property owners attend the Council’s hearing on the rezoning, and
present evidence that Developer’s 40-acre parcel is included in CC&Rs that
restrict development to one home per 3.3 acres
 The City approves the rezoning despite the neighboring property owners’
objections
 After the rezoning is approved, the local newspaper reports that Developer owes a
large sum of money to one of the council members who voted for the rezoning
Scenario 8: Church Daycare
 First Church is a well established local church attended by four of the City’s seven
Council members
 First Church would like to establish a daycare that would- operate seven days a week
 be available to the public at large (not limited to church members)
 Not require staff to be church members
 Include mealtime prayers but not involve any other religious study or training
Scenario 8: Church Daycare
 First Church is located in a zone that permits single family residences and
churches, but not daycare or commercial uses
 First Church is in financial duress and argues the daycare is critical to its fiscal
health
 First Church submits an application for permits for the daycare