Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/02/1998

Home

Z.B. October 10, 1998 -- Page 5 ion, and they claimed they were using the property as a motel -- a legal use. The city claimed it didn't have to compensate the owners because it was simply exercising its power to abate nuisances. To avoid paying compensation for depriving the owners of all beneficial use of the motel, the city had to prove nuisance laws prohibited the owners from using the property for the purpose for which they bought it. According to the city, the board's order was aimed at terminating the continuation of activities that had long been considered nuisances drug use and prostitution. The court awarded the owners judgment without a trial, finding the city had to pay the owners for the temporary taking of their property. The city appealed. DECISION: Reversed. Even though the board denied the owners of ail economically beneficial use of the property, the city didn't have to compensate the owners. The owners weren't using the property as a motel, they were using it as a brothel-and-drug house -- which wasn't a legal use. By ordering the entire motel closed, the city denied the owners of all eco- nomically beneficial use o£ the property a 57-unit motel. The evidence, however, showed that the motel was in reality not a motel, but rather a brothel and drug house that the owners -- for whatever reason -- failed to stop oper- ating. The prostitution and drug-related activities were "inextricably inter- twined" with the motel. The only way the city could stop these illegal activities was to bar access to the base of operations, which could be done only by com- pletely closing the motel. Although denying an owner of all beneficial use of his or her property generally was a taking, no compensation was required when the taking was done solely to prevent an activity the owner had no right to continue on the property. see also: Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 .U.S. 1003, 120 L.Ed. 2d 798, ]12 S. Ct. 2886 (1992). Code Violation- Court fines owners $147,500 for storing I0junk vehicles Ci'tation: Ritz v. Area _Planning Commission of Franklin County, Couri of At,peals of Indiana, 4th Dist., No. 24AO4-9709-CV-379 (2998) The Franklin County, Ind., planning commission sued the Ritzes, claiming they were storing automobiles and buses on their property in violation of the zoning code. The code prohibited storing in residential districts any vehicles that didn't have current license plates or that didn't operate. The commission sought a court order prohibiting the Ritzes from storing the vehicles on their property. The commission also asked the court to fine the Ritzes. The county planning code stated that owners could be fined up to $2,500 for an ordinance violation. The court fined the Ritzes $2,500 and ordered them to bring their property