Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/04/1999

Home

z.g. April 25, 1999 ~ Page 5 DECISION: Judgment for the village. The 1996 ordinance was constitutional. Wolfe was still entitled to a trial to determine damages under the 1994 ordinance. Restrictions placed on adult entertainment were valid if they served a le- gitimate government interest and didn't unreasonably limit alternative avenues of communication. The village's 1994 ordinance was unconstitutional because it completely prohibited owners from operating adult businesses anywhere in the village. The 1996 amendment, however, left 27 percent of the village's commercial property available for adult businesses, so it was valid. Wolfe correctly argued the village couldn't enforce its zoning ordinance against preexisting nonconforming uses, but his property didn't qualify. The adult bookstore was shut down as a nuisance in 1991, and there was no proof it had ever been reopened. Moreover, even if Wolfe had proved his property had an adult bookstore on it in 1995, the bookstore would have been illegal even without the 1994 ordinance. The village had determined in 1991 that the book- store on Wolfe's property was a nuisance, and therefore illegal, so it couldn't be grandfathered under the 1996 ordinance. Taking -- Did requiring developer to improve road on federal land amount to a taking? Citation: Kahuna Land Company v. Spokane County, Court of Appeals of . Washington, No. 17J2 4-1-III (~999) Kahuna Land Company owned an undeveloped parcel in Spokane County, Wash. The only access to the site was by an unnamed public road that ran through property owned by.the federal government. In May 1995, Kahuna applied to the county for preliminary plat approval allowing it to build 20 single-family homes on its property. The county hearing committee approved the application with certain conditions, including that Kahuna pave the road both within and beyond the proposed subdivision and all the way to the nearest street. Kahuna also had to curb the road within the pro- posed subdivision and connect the development to a sewer main that ran through the neighboring federal property. Kahuna appealed.to the county board, challenging the committee's condi- tions. The board affirmed the committee's decision. Kahuna appealed to court, claiming the conditions amounted to an uncon- stitutional taking because they would prevent it from making a profit on its investment. Kahuna claimed the conditions went beyond merely protecting the public interest and required it to benefit the federal government by making road and sewer improvements on federal property. Kahuna also claimed the conditions violated its due process rights because the county could have achieved its goals through less restrictive means, such as by assessing the costs of road construction on all neighboring property own- ers or by making the federal government extend the road and sewers to the edge of the federal land.