Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/07/1997

Home

Z.B. December 15, 1996. Page 3 .t The buffer-zone requirement was constitutional. The city's concern about public safety associated with sexually related entertainment was a proper goal of zoning, and the ordinance was narrowly tailored to promote that goal. It would be unconstitutional to apply the 750-foot requirement to block Vicary's proposal. Several barriers already separated Angels from the mobile home parks. These barriers satisfied the ordinance's purposes, so applying the buffer zone to Vicary would not serve the ordinance's purpose. If the city applied the restriction to Vicary, it would restrict speech more than necessary to promote public safety. No evidence showed the city ever considered any alternatives to the 750-foot buffer. Even though Vicary did not apply for a conditional use permit or a vari- ance, she could still challenge the ordinance in court. The city appeared to have prejudged the matter, and it would have been futile for Vicary to apply for a permit or variance. City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres Inc., 475 U.& 41, 206 S. Ct. 925, 89 L.Ed. 2d 29 (1986). Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 92 S. Ct. 2294, 33 L.Ed. 2d 222 (Z_972). Rezoning -- Was invalid rezoning a taking of developer's property? New Port Largo Inc. v. Monroe County, 95 E3d 1084 (Florida) 1996 In 1979, New Port Largo Inc. (NPL) bought residentially zoned beachfront property in Monroe County, Fla. The land had been dredged from beneath the water to create a landing strip, and had in the past served as an airstrip. In 1980, the county rezoned the property for private airport use. In 1984, the county sued NPL over ownership of the property. NPL even- tually won the case. However, while the case was proceeding, the operator of a private airport' used the property and paid the county rent. Acc6rding to NPL, the county advised the tenant to stay on and use the property after the lease ended and to continue paying the county. In 1986, NPL sued the county in state court. NPL said the rezoning to private airport use was invalid under the county's Major Development Project Ordinance. It also claimed the rezoning was an unconstitutional taking and a denial of due process. The court ruled the rezoning procedure was invalid, but NPL was not entitled to compensation because the county rezoned the property in good faith. NPL then sued the county in federal court alleging the county took its property without compensation. It sought the value of the property from 1980 to 1986. NPL also claimed the county deprived it of due process. In support of its takings claim, NPL said the county conspired with the airport operator and deprived it of the right to exclude others from its prop- erty. NPL also said the county deprived it of ali economically viable use of the property. Finally, NPL argued it relied on the property's residential zoning when buying it, so the county had to pay compensation for the rezoning. The court granted the county judgment and NPL appealed.