Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/07/1996

Home

[Page 4 -- September 15, 1996 Z.B. iRezoning -- City won't rezone annexed property without getting some land in return Goss v. City of Little Rock, 90 F. 3d 306 (Arkansas) J996 : Goss bought 3.7 acres in a rural, unincorporated area outside the city of ~Little Rock, Ark. The property was next to a two-lane highway. Goss started ~running a convenience store, gas station, laundromat and car wash there. ~ About 14 years later, the city annexed Goss' property and some surround- ing land. By default, Goss' property became zoned single-family residential :_under the city code. If his businesses were not legal nonconforming uses, they i would have to be conducted in a general commercial district. Because the businesses predated the annexation, though, they were legal nonconforming ~ uses. · Though Goss continued with his businesses, he said a sale of them was conditioned on getting the property rezoned. He asked the city to rezone his i property general commercial. The city's Board of Directors said. it would not !:rezone the property unless Goss dedicated for future highway expansion the 55-feet-deep strip that ran alongside the highway (about 22 percent of the i total land). (Apparently, although the property already was being used com- mercially, the city claimed a different commercial use could produce heavier !traffic.) According to Goss, the city insisted on the dedication so its treasury wouldn't have to pay him condemnation damages later. Goss sued the city in federal court. He said the city's attempt to make him ~ give up part of his property to get the property rezoned was a taking that i violated the Fifth and 14th Amendments to the federal Constitution. ~ Without considering any evidence, the court dismissed Goss' case, saying i he had no legal claim. Goss appealed. ~ DECISION: Reversed and sent back to the trial court. The lower court should not have dismissed Goss' case. The case was re- : turned to the lower court for further proceedings. Had the city made Goss dedicate the property, a taking would have oc- curred. Therefore, the city had to have a legitimate concern about the rezon- i lng so it could justify putting a condition on its approval. Also, the condition i it chose -- requiring dedication of land to fUture highway expansion -- had to be roughly proportional to the impact the rezoning would have. If the city's actions did not meet these tests, the city would be using its zoning power improperly to get Goss to give up his constitutional right to compensation. Because the lower court did not take any evidence, the appeals court could not tell whether the city met the tests. Nollan v. CaJifornia Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825, 107 S. Ct. 3141, 97 L.Ed. 2d 677 (1987). Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365, 47 S. Ct. 1J4, 7J L.Ed. 303 (J926).