Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/06/1995

Home

Page 8 -- May 1995 Z.B. , Taking -- Restrictions Imposed on Land Near Air Force Base Harris v. City of Wichita, Sedgwick County, 862 F. Supp. 287 (Kansas) 1994 Harris and others owned an 80-acre tract in Sedgwick County, Kan. Part of the property lay in the city of Wichita. The property was next to McConnell Air Force Base and was zoned for commercial use. In 1987, an Air Force study of aircraft accidents concluded that most accidents occurred on land next to runway take-off and approach paths. The study was based largely on data collected between 1968 and 1973. As of 1994, there was an average of one crash a year near one of the country's 160 Air Force bases. As a result of the study, Sedgwick County and the city of Wichita enacted an ordinance restricting land use in Airport Overlay Districts (AODs). Most of Harris' property fell within one of two AODs. The ordinance prohibited in those areas uses that would bring together large numbers of people (such as restaurants, high-density housing, hotels, and large stores). Preexisting uses were not affected by the ordinance, and landowners within AODs could seek variances. Although Harris said he planned heavy commercial use of the property, he had not submitted a development plan for approval or sought any variance from the AOD ordinance. Harris sued the city and the county's Board of Commissioners, claiming the ordinance took his property without just compensation and violated his due process and equal protection rights. He sought damages and a declara- tion that the ordinance was invalid. The county and city asked the court for judgment without a trial. DECISION: Judgment for the county and the city. The ordinance was valid and had to be upheld because it was reasonable. The city and county could reasonably conclude there was an increased danger of airplane crashes near runways (even if that risk was small), and could restrict use of nearby land in the interest of public safety. The ordi- nance rationally sought to minimize the threat to public safety by prohibiting uses that could attract large groups of people. Because Harris made no effort to get approval for a development plan or to seek variances, the court could not yet hear his claims for damages. Until . the county or.city made a final decision regarding Harris' proposed land use, it was impossible for Harris to claim he was denied just compensation, due process, or equal protection. Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172 105 S. Ct. 3108, 87 L.Ed. 2d 126 (1985). Agins v. City of Tiburon, 447 U.S. 255, 100 S. Ct. 2138, 65 L.Ed. 2d 106 (1980).