Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/04/1995

Home

Page 6 -- March 1995 Z.B. '~ The bank and the developers asked the city to rezone the property and asked for preliminary approval of a new subdivision plat. ~ The Springfield Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial of the rezoning. The commission stated the new plan would add traffic to major roads, depart from the city's Comprehensive Plan, and harm the neighboring residential areas. After a public hearing, the commission unanimously voted to recommend that the city council deny the petition. The city council modified the commission's recommendation, rezoning the central part of the property to a general residential and office district. It also rezoned the areas near the village and the shopping plaza as community shop- ping and office districts. The council zoned a small part of the property as a highway business service district. The bank and the developers had requested these zoning designations. Soon after the rezoning ordinance became effective, more than 50 home- owners from the neighboring subdivisions and two neighborhood associations (including Westwood Forum Inc.) sued the city, asking the court to declare the ordinance unconstitutional. The homeowners also asked the court to give them money damages, because the rezoning was.an unofficial taking of property by inverse condemnation. The court held that the homeowners did not state a Case of inverse condem- nation, so it dismissed that claim. The court then granted, the city judgment without a trial on the homeowners' claim that the ordinance was unconstitutional. The homeowners appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. The homeowners did not show the ordinance was unreasonable or unre- lated to public health, safety, or welfare. Therefore, they did not show it was unconstitutional. The area had a mix of commercial and residential uses, so the council properly balanced the different interests. Although neighboring prop- erty values would probably decline, the public would benefit through increased available jobs, higher revenues from commercial development, and increased shopping opportunities. Also, the area's population was growing. The homeowners were not entitled to money damages on their inverse con- demnation claim because the ordinance advanced a legitimate state interest and they did not show they had been deprived of a~y use of their property. To state a case they had to show they lost all use of their property. Suhadolnik v. City of Springfield, 540 N.E. 2d 895 (1989). Zoning Change -- Strawberry Farmers Sue City When Potential Buyers BackOut of Deals . . Kawaoka v. City of Arroyo Grande, 17 E3d 1227 (Califo~?~ia) 1994 The Kawaokas owned 35 acres of land in the city of Arroyo Grande, Calif., which they used for strawberry farming. Neighbors who owned a nearby 20-acre lot also used their land for agricultural purposes. The surrounding land was residential and commercial.