Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/05/1999

Home

Page 4 -- December 24, 1998 Z.B. The court prohibited the city from enforcing the sign code against Adams. The city appealed, claiming there was no way the court could have found Adams' rooftop billboards were taken because Adams had other signs in the city and therefore wasn't deprived of all economically viable use of its property. DECISION: Reversed in part, and returned to the trial court. The code did amount to a taking of Adams' rooftop signs. The trial court had to reconsider whether there was a taking of the freestanding signs. The sign code was a legitimate exercise of the city's police powers, but this didn't mean a regulatory taking didn't occur. With respect to all the billboards, the "property" in question wasn't the value of the billboards, it was Adams' property interest in the places where the signs were Iocated. Even legitimate regulations could amount to a taking if they deprived owners of economically viable use of their property. The trial court properly found the code amounted to a taking of Adams' rooftop billboards. The code flatly prohibited such signs, which meant Adams had to remove all of its rooftop signs. It didn't matter that the code created an "amortization" period to allow sign owners to recover their investments. The trial court had to reconsider whether the code amounted to a taking of the freestanding signs, because it considered only the economic losses Adams suffered under the sign code. The court determined Adams' losses with respect to the freestanding signs, but it never calculated the value remahff~g at the property, given that Adams could keep four signs. Although there was no set formula for determining when a regulatory taking occurred, whether a regula- tion denied an owner of all economically viable use of the land required at the very least a comparison of the value removed with the value that remained. see also: Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003, 112 S. Ct. 2886, 120 L.Ed. 2d 798 (1992). see also: K&K Construction Inc. v. Department of Natural Resources, 575 N. W.2d 531 (1998). Moratorium -- Service provider challenges town's moratorium on communications facilities Citation: National Telecommunications Advisors LLC v. Board of Selectme~z of the Town of West Stockbridge, U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, No. 98-30119-MAP (1998) National Telecommunications Advisors LLC wanted to build a 190-foot cellular tower in West Stockbridge, Mass. It leased a site and two weeks later applied to the town board for a special permit to build the tower. The town administrator told National the town had scheduled a public hear- lng for March 25, less than a month away. The administrator also said, though, that the hearing would likely be postponed until May due to a vacancy on the board. National responded that it wouldn't agree to a postponement and wanted to proceed before the existing board members.