Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/02/1998

Home

Page 4 -- October 25, 1998 Z.B. amount to a taking. The city had a legitimate reason to ask Goss to dedicate the property, but it never showed the dedication it sought was proportionate to the impact the rezoning would have on traffic. The city based its decision on the amount of traffic that could be generated if a strip mall were built on the prop- erty, but Goss had no plans to build a strip mall, and there was no reason to expect he would build one. The trial court should not have ordered the city to..rezone Goss's property without the dedication requirement. The city had a legitimate interest in declining to rezone Goss's property, and the city could pursue that interest by denying Goss's rezoning application outright, as opposed to denying it be- cause Goss refused to agree to an unconstitutional condition. Goss wasn't entitled to monetary damages based on the city's refusal to rezone his property without the dedication requirement. The city wasn't le- gally obligated to rezone Goss's property, so Goss wasn't entitled to damages based on its refusal to do so.. see also: Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374, 114 S.Ct. 2309, 129 L.Ed. 2d 304 (1994). see also: Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825, 107 S.Ct. 3141, 97 L.Ed.2d 677 (1987). Vested Right -- Developer gets building permits after learning county might rezone property Citation: Koontz v. Davidson County Board of Adjustment, Court of Appeals of North Carolina, No. COA97-839 (1998) Developers wanted to build a mobile home community in Davidson County, N.C. On Sept. 27, the developers contracted to buy the land for $64,000 and put down $1,000 as earnest money. On Oct. 11, Koontz and Hendrick (neighbors) asked the county to rezone the district in question to exclude mobile homes. On Oct. 31, a zoning officer approved' the developers' subdivision plan. The following week, the county planning commission recommended approving the rezoning,' but said the developers' property should be excluded. The developers began grading the property and got zoning and building permits. Despite the pending rezoning application, the developers built a street in the subdivision and performed landscaping. On Dec. 4, the county rezoned the entire area, including the developers' property. The developers began placing mobile homes on the property 10 days later. The county zoning administrator declared that the mobile homes had become a legal nonconforming use or, alternatively, that the developers had a vested right to place the mobile homes on the property. Under state common Iaw, an owner's right to develop vested when the owner spent a substantial amount of money in reasonable reliance on a valid building permit. The owner's reliance had to be in good faith.