Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/07/1995

Home

~ Z.B. January 15, 1995 -- Page 3 day, the county, adopted a "restated" zoning ordinance which created a new zoning obstacl~ to Chambers' plans. After a hea~ing, the .court ruled in favor of Chambers and ordered the county to issue a zoniag compliance verification letter. The court found that, as of the date Chamberi asked for verification, the county did not have any land use ordinances tha~ prevented issuing the letter. However, the court did not make any findings about whether the new ordinance applied to Chambers' situation. The county iissued a verification letter to the department of natural resources, but the letter i~dicated that the project might not comply with the new ordi- nance. Chambers asked the court to find either that the county was in contempt of court, or that~the proposed landfill did not violate current zoning ordinances. The court ~ound Chambers had a vested right to the zoning compliance letter when it a~ked for one. Therefore, the new zoning ordinance did not apply to Chambers, aad the county had to verify Chambers' compliance with zoning. The countylappealed. DECISION: A~.~firmed, in favor of Chambers. Chambers' project complied with the county's zoning ordinances when it was filed, so Cl~ambers had a vested right to the verification letter. The county could not take ~hat right away by rezoning the land or adopting a more restric- tive ordinance. ,: WMM prOPerties Inc. v. Cobb Cou~ity, 339 S.E. 2d 252 (1986). Subdivision -~ City Intentionally Stalls on Country Club's Application to Build Residential Subdivision River Park Inc. v. City of Highland Park, 23 F. 3d 164 (Illinois) 1994 River Park inc., owned the Highland Park Country Club in Highland Park, III. River Park $1so owned land around the club's golf course, and planned to build a resideniial subdivision there. The land was zoned so that one house could be built ¢n every three acres. River Park's planned subdivision would contain a half-aCre per lot, so it had to be rezoned. River Park asked the city to rezone the land; A member Df the city council organized a citizens group to oppose the project. For mo~e than a year, the council stalled and raised minor objections. Since a year hail passed since the filing, the application expired. River Park ~efiled its rezoning application, and the city stalled again. Later, River Park wen~ bankrupt, and its lender foreclosed on the property. River Park iued the city in federal court, claiming city officials violated its right to due process with their unwarranted delays in considering the rezon-ing application. Th~ court dismissed the case, and River Park appealed. DECISION: Affirmed, case dismissed. River Park'~ due process rights only applied to the state's appeals proce- dure in zoning~' ases. Despite the city's lengthy delay of several years, River Park never askdd a state court to order the city to decide on the rezoning appli-