Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/03/2008

Home

December 25, 20071 Volume 1 I No. 24 produced. The board did not state its reasoning for denying the vari- ance. Haisley appealed the board's decision to court. The court found in Haisley's favor, reversing the board's deci- sion on the grounds that it amounted to an illegal taking. The court found that there was no "evidence that the lot, if unable to be usen as a single family residential lot, could be used separately for any practical purpose. Therefore, [affirming the board's decision] would render the lot useless for any practical purpose and amount to a con- fiscation of the property." The county appealed, arguing that denying a variance to waive minimum lot size requirement did not amoUht to a taking. The county had a right to enforce its zoning regulations, and zoning or- dinances were generally presumed constitutional. Decision: Reversed and returned to the lower court for further proceedings. The trial court determined that the decision of the board was "un- reasonable and improper," and, if affirmed, would result in an un- constitutional taking. But the appeals court noted that "the sole test for whether an unconstitutional taking occurred in the present case [was] whether the regulation completely deprived the owners of all economically beneficial ~ses of the property." Further, as provided by case law, Haisley bore the burden of proving that the zoning ordinance was unconstitutional. However, neither the record nor the decision of the trial court demonstrated that Haisley carried that burden. Instead, the appeals court found, the decision of the trial court "appear[ed] to have improperly looked to the Board of Zoning Appeals to carry the burden of prov- ing the constitutionality" of the ordinance in question-the mini- mum lot size requirement. The appeals court stated that the standard that was applied when the trial court reviewed the decision of the board was unclear, and the record did not contain sufficient evidence to justify the trial court's findings and determinations on other grounds, such as being unrea- sonable, arbitrary or otherwise contrary to law. It concluded that: "[u]nder these circ:umstances we must find an abuse of discretion in the trial court's decision." Because there were questions as to how the trial court reached its conclusions, the case was returned to the lower court for a determina- tion whether the board's decision to deny Haisley's application for a variance was unconstitutional, illegal, arbitrary, capricious, unreason- i\) able, or unsupported by substantial, reliable, and probative evidence. -:--.... See also: Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 544 U.S. 528, 125 S.Ct. 2074 (2005). 5 79