Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/06/2007

Home

Zoning Bulletin /--,\ In response, Miller filed a petition for declaratory relief, alleging that, while the annexation was still pending, his right to develop the property became vested. Miller asked the court to declare that the city could not cut those vested rights by "inhibit[ing], imped[ing], or preclude[ing] the commercial development of the property." In the meantime, Wal-Mart withdrew its applications to the city, and the city returned all application fees that it had paid. Subse- quently, the city filed a response to Miller's request, arguing that Miller's claim became moot, or alternatively, not ripe because there was no existing project in which he had vested rights. The court denied the city's request to dismiss the case, and the city appealed. Decision: Affirmed. The grounds upon which the city claimed Miller's challenge to the development moratorium failed were: mootness, because Wal-Mart was no longer interested in developing the property in question; and ripeness, because local government code required that permits be issued or denied for a controversy to be ripe for adjudication., j\/~ Further, a case was not ripe if its resolution depended on "contin- · _) gent or hypothetical facts, 'or upon events not yet come to pass." However, the state legislature had created a system under which property developers could rely on land-use regulations in effect at the time that an original application for a permit was filed. Further- more, a municipality could not, after annexing an area, prohibit a person from beginning to use land in the annexed area in a manner that was planned 90 days before the effective date of the annexation if certain conditions existed. Here, it was clear that Miller, with Wal-Mart as his agent, filed original applications for and was granted some permits, a contract with the water department was executed, and multiple preliminary plats had been filed with the city. The fact that Miller's anchor ten- ant withdrew from the commercial development project did not au- tomatically moot the question of what regulations controlled the de- velopment of the property. With regard to the ripeness issue, Miller argued that he intended to develop the property with another large retail store as the anchor tenant but had not secured a new buyer due to the city's actions "in driving out Wal-Mart and improperly rezoning" his property. The \..___j appeals court found that this was sufficient to at least raise an is- sue that required judicial review on whether Miller's intended devel- 10 46