Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/06/1997

Home

Page 8 -- April 10, 1997 z.a. rule was unreasonable, and therefore could not be enforced. Because the county's width rule was arbitrary, the issue of the trailers' road readiness was less relevant. Even so, Sunshine presented evidence that the models were transportable, which would suggest they were recreational vehicles, not mobile homes. As for the building additions, the models needed classification before they had any external additions, not after. Whether or not individual trailer owners decided to make these attachments was a separate issue. see also: Florida League of Cities Inc. v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 603 So. 2d 1363 (]992). see also: Florida Citrus Com~nission v. Owens, 239 So. 2d 840 (1969). Taking -- Landowner claims environmental regulations destroyed land value Basile v. Town of Southampton, J 997 NY Int. 26 (New York) J997 In 1980, Basile bought 12 acres of land in the town of Southampton, N.Y. Even though the land was zoned for residential development, it was 95 percent tidal wetlands, and so was subject to additional environmental regulations. Because of the land's status as a tidal wetland, the previous owner had filed papers with the county admitting that the land "may consist of wetlands and may not be suitable for erection of a dwelling." The papers plac. ed a restriction on the land by stating "no building or structure shall be erected on [the land] unless and until said [land] is approved as a building lot by the Planning Board of the Town of Southampton." Basile bought the land with knowledge of the restrictions. In 1990, the town condemned the land and arranged to pay Basile for the land's value. The town appraised the land at $117,500. Basile said the land was worth $960,000. A court agreed with the town's appraisal and awarded Basile $117,500. Basile appealed. She argued the wetlands regulations resulted in a taking because they decreased the land's value. The U.S. Constitution required the government to justly compensate a property owner when it took his or her property. Basile contended just compensation for the land was the value of the land without any restrictions. The town argued just compensation was the land's property value with the wetlands regulations. DECISION: Affirmed. The town owed Basile only $117,500 for the land. The land's property value had to reflect the impact of the wetlands regulations. The only party who could challenge the $117,500 just-compensation value was the owner who had the property when the restriction first went into effect. Basile bought the land with the restriction already in place, so she could not claim a property value without any restriction. see also: Town of lslip v. Mascioli, 49 N'g. 2d 354. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I