Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/05/1995

Home

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I z.g. November 1995 --Page 7 [[ Emerson petitioned for detachment of the causeway from the city of Wayzata. While tha~ petition was pending, the Wheeler children (and their corporation) asked a court to declare the city's zoning ordinances invalid and unenforce- able. Alternately, they asked the court to order the city to begin eminent domain proceedings and compensate them for taking the land. The d~tachment petition was denied. In the ~ourt case, the city got judgment without a trial. The Wheelers appealed. The al~peals court reversed, ruling for the Wheelers. It held the Wheelers could not ~et claim the city had taken their land by zoning it residential because they had riot completed their rezoning application or applied for a variance. However, lthe court ruled the zoning ordinance created a hardship on the Wheelers that was not self-imposed. The zoning ordinance, which was other- wise valid; was unconstitutional as applied to the Wheelers. The zoning ordi- nance denied all uses but residential. Since the land could not support residen- tial use, th~ ordinance denied the Wheelers all reasonable use of their property and amougted to a taking. The city appealed. DECISION: Reversed, lower court's judgment for the city reinstated. The trial court properly granted the city judgment without a trial, and the appeals court improperly reversed it. The city zoning ordinance could consti- tutionally be applied to the Wheelers and their corporation, and was not a tak- ing of the property. Their hardship was self-imposed. The at,peals court correctly held the taking claim was not ready for the court's rev~iew m the Wheelers did not first try to get the property rezoned or get a variance. Howe~er, the appeals court incorrectly found the ordinance deprived the Wheelers ~f any reasonable use of their property. The causeway property had been zone~ residential since 1956. Because the property was so narrow and had a 66-f{>ot highway over its entire length, it was not fit for most ordinary land uses. ~he "hardship" was caused by the nature of the property, not the zoning ordinance. The property never had much practical use to begin with. Duringiabout 30 years of ownership, Walter and Cecile Wheeler never chal- lenged the property's residential zoning. They also failed to comply with the condition Of the 1961 subdivision approval -- they did not convey the interest in the causeway with the second lot. The causeway property's unsuitability for residential purposes became significant only after the Wheeler parents sold the second lot. iThe Wheeler children were bound by their parents' and other own- ers' condu~t. The wheelers' long delay in objecting to the zoning prejudiced neighborin~ owners. If the causeway became commercial, it would be unfair and detrimental to neighboring property owners who reasonably relied on the ordinance'~ validity and the causeway's existing use. The hardship to the corporation was also self-imposed. Emerson got the property fr~)m its owners, who got the property from their parents. Since the hardship w~ts self-imposed, it did not justify relief from zoning laws. In the Matter of 113 HillsideAvenue Corp. v. Zaino, 265 N.E. 2d 733 (1970). Filister~v. City of Mim~eat~olis, 133 N. W. 2d 500 (1964).