Laserfiche WebLink
'!: Z.B. December 10, 1999 m Page 7 <br /> <br />Taking -- Property owner alleges denial of rezoning application was a <br />taking <br /> <br />WASHINGTON (11/8/99) Hansen bought property in Snohomish County. <br />Adjacent properties were zoned both residential and commercial. He submit- <br />ted an application to rezone the property to general commercial,, along with a <br />proposed site development plan consisting of four commercial buildings. The <br />application was denied on the grounds it was inconsistent with the design- <br />review criteria and policies of the Snohomi~h-Lake Stevens comprehensive <br />plan. Hansen reapplied by submitting a new proposal and grading permit ap- <br />plication. These were denied. <br /> Hansen appealed to the Snohomish City Council, which upheld the rezon- <br />ing denial. <br /> Hansen sued, alleging the denial was a taking, damaged the property, ~nd <br />violated his civil rights. <br /> The court found the county could, deny the rezoning application.. Hansen <br />appealed, and the decision was again afl'med. The case was returned to the <br />lower court for further proceedings. <br /> Meanwhile, the county rezoned the property to one single-family home per <br />five-acre lot. <br /> The county was awarded judgment without a trial. Hansen appealed, con- <br />tending the new rezoning allowed only one single-family residence and was a <br />taking. : <br /> <br />DECISION: Affirmed. <br /> Hansen did not have a right to develop the property under general commer- <br />cial zoning when it was purchased; so nothing was taken. Hansen owned what <br />he purchased -- a single lot zoned for residential use. The county's regulations <br />did not take a right Hansen ever owned. <br /> <br />Citation: Hansen v. Snohomish County, Court of Appeals of Washington, <br />Div. 1, No. 43763-1-1 (1999). <br /> <br />see also: Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003, 112 S. Ct. <br />2886, J20 L. Ed. 2d 798 (1992). <br /> <br />see also: Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Association, 452 <br />U.S. 264, 101 S. Ct. 2352, 69 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1981). <br /> <br />Appeal -- Zoning commission does not issue def'mitive order <br />OHIO (11/10/99) --TravelCenters of America Inc. operated a travel-related <br />service center, which included a service station, convenience store, and restau- <br />rant at a highway intersection. In conjunction with its plan to raze, rebuild, and <br />modernize the service center, TravelCenter applied for a zoning certificate from <br />the Westfield zoning inspector. <br /> The Westfield township zoning commission considered the site plan at a <br /> <br /> <br />