Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/05/1998

Home

Z.B. April 10, 1998 -- Page 5 Taking m Owner claims rezoning of property from residential to industrial is a taking DeCook v. City of Rochester, Court of Appeals of Minnesota, No. C8-97- 2518 (1998) DeCook bought property in the city of. Rochester, Minn. Most of the prop- erty was zoned residential, and DeCook ~pparently planned to develop a resi- dential subdivision. About 23 acres were zoned industrial when he bought it. The city rezoned DeCook's land from residential to industrial so it would conform with a city-county comprehensive plan that had existed since the late 1970s. DeCook sued the city, arguing that the rezoning of his property from resi- dential to industrial was a taking under state and federal law. Under state common law, a landowner was entitled to compensation if a land use regulation solely benefited a government enterprise and resulted in a "substantial and measurable decline in market value" of the property. If a government enterprise wasn't .involved, a land use regulation constituted a compensable taking under state law if it deprived a landowner of all reasonable use of the property. Under federal law, a general zoning law wasn't a taking if it substantially advanced "legitimate state interests" and didn't deny an owner all "economically viabI¢ use of his land." DeCook claimed the rezoning was a compensable taking because the city rezoned the property for the sole benefit of an airport, which he claimed was a government enterprise. DeCook's appraiser testified that the property had sig- nificant value after it was rezoned industrial~ but DeCook would have realized more financial gain from his property if he could have developed it as a residen- tial area. The city claimed the property wasn't rezoned to benefit a government enterprise, so DeCook wasn't entitled to compensation because'the rezoning didn't deprive him of all reasonable use of his property. The court ruled in favor of the city, and DeCook appeaied. DECISION: The city's rezoning of D¢Cook's property wasn't a taking. The city didn't rezone DeCook's property to benefit a government enter- prise. The government enterprise standard appIied only when a specific governmental enterprise took an effective easement. The city didn't take an easement on DeCook's property .... it rezoned his land from residential to indus- trial to conform with a comprehensive plan. And because DeCook knew that 25 acres of land had already been classified industrial when he bought the prop- erty, he couldn't claim a taking of those 23 acres. Because the rezoning wasn't for the benefit of a government enterprise, the rezoning could be a taking only if DeCook was deprived of all reasonable use of his Iand. Although he might have realized more financial gain from developing a residential area, DeCook's own appraiser testified that the land had signifi-