Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/02/1998

Home

Z.B. October 25, 1998 Page 3 public hearing, the board "squandered its opportunity to meet its burden" un- der the Act. see also: BellSouth Mobility Inc. v. Gwinnett County, 944 F. SuRt~. 923 (1996). see also: Illinois RSA No. 3 Inc. v. County of Peoria, 963 F. Supp. 732 (1997). Taking-- City won't rezone property unless owner dedicates part to expand highway Citation: Goss v. City of Little Rock, 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeats, Nos. 97-2652 & 97~2790 (1998) The 8th Circuit has jurisdiction over Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota. Goss owned residential property in Little Rock, Ark. He asked the city to rezone it commercial. The city planning commission recommended that the city approve Goss's request only if Goss would dedicate 22 percent of the property for the city to expand an adjacent highway. Goss refused, and the city denied his rezoning request. Goss sued the city. He claimed the city's making him dedicate part of his property before it could be rezoned amounted to an unconstitutional taking. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, imposing a condition such as the city's dedication requirement wasn't a taking as long as there was some connection between the condition and the government's legitimate interest in preventing the proposed development. The government had to prove the condition was "roughly proportional" to the likely impact of granting the applicant's request. The court dismissed Goss's claim, but an appeals court reversed. The ap- peals court found Goss might be entitled to damages. After a trial, the court found the dedication requirement did constitute a taking. It ordered the city to rezone Goss's property without the dedication requirement. However, the court said Goss wasn't entitled to any damages. According to the court, the city's dedication requirement was connected to its interest in preventing increased traffic that could result if the property were rezoned commercial. The court also found, though, that the city didn't prove the dedication requirement was proportionate to the impact that the proposed rezoning would have on traffic. It found the city's assessment of the impact was too speculative because it was based on traffic that could ,conceivably" be generated if a strip mall was later built on Goss's property. The city appealed, arguing it had a legitimate reason to demand the dedica- tion. Goss also appealed, claiming he was entitled to damages. DECISION: Reversed in part. The city's refusal to rezone Goss's property unless he dedicated part of his property was a taking. The court shouldn't have ordered the city to rezone the property without the dedication requirement. The refusal to rezone Goss's property unless he dedicated part of it did