Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/06/1996

Home

Z.B. December 15, 1995 -- Page 5 commissions and the municipalities required to receive notice shall be con- sidered parties" who could appeal. Because of this limitation, Scheiber could not appeal the board's decision to court. Vermont Dev. Credit Corp. v. Kitchel, 544 A.2d 1165 (1988). In re Carrier, 537A.2d 135 (S987). Taking -- City Says Rezoning Wasn't Taking Because Less Than Entire Lot Was Rezoned Zealy v. City of Waukesha, 534 N. I~2d 917 (Wisconsi~O 1995 Zealy owned 10.1 acres in the city of Waukesha, Wis. The land was zoned residential when the city annexed it in 1967, but a small part of it was later reclassified for business use. In 1982, Zealy granted the city an easement on part of the property for storm and sanitary sewers. Zealy said he granted the easement because the city told him it would make future residential develop- ment easier. In 1985, the city rezoned to conservation use 8.2 acres of Zealy's residen- tially zoned property. The change was intended to protect existing wetlands. It essentially precluded any further development of that land. Zealy sued the city. He claimed the city's zoning change was a taking for which he should have been compensated. He said the rezoned part of the property lost almost all its economic value. The city argued there was no taking because the rezoning restricted the use of only part of Zealy's property -- the property as a whole retained substantial value. Zealy said a 1990 appraisal showed the rezoned portion of his property dropped 99 percent in value, from $200,000 to $4,000. He conceded, however, that the entire prop- erty was not affected enough to support a taking claim because of the com- mercial portion's value. After a trial, the court dismissed Zealy's case. It held that the property could not be segmented to determine whether there was a taking. Zealy appealed. DECISION: Reversed in part and returned to the trial court. The trial court improperly dismissed Zealy's takings claim, but its dis- missal of another claim was affirmed. The court should have analyzed Zealy's reasonably anticipated use of the property to determine whether he should have been compensated for the rezoned portion. The case was sent back for a new trial on the takings claim. There was no set rule that an entire parcel had to be rendered practically useless by a zoning change. Nor could different parts of a property be consid- ered separately every time. Instead, courts had to determine in each case the nature of the government regulation, the severity of the economic impact on the landowner, and the effect on the landowner's reasonably anticipated use of the property. The trial court failed to review factors such as the extent to which Zealy treated the parcel as a single unit or the extent to which the rezoned propcrty