Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/05/1995

Home

I I I I '1 I I I I I '1 I I I I I I I I November 15, 1995 -- Page 3 The city did not violate Hoeck's due process rights. No reasonable jury could find the city acted arbitrarily. The city's code gave it authority to abate abandoned !buildings, and Hoeck even acknowledged the city's police power gave it that authority. The city could rationally find that vacant substandard buildings v4ere more dangerous to the public than occupied ones. The lov~er court properly found that the city's actions were not a state law taking. The!city did not physically invade the property to put it to public use. Its prohibit.ion of abandoned buildings was a valid land use regulation that was in effect when Hoeck bought the property. The city went on the property only to enforce that regulation. If Hoeck had Obeyed the city's order to repair the building and put it to use, the city would not have destroyed it. Also, the demolition did not take away ali economic use of the property -- although the building w~ gone, the lot was still suitable for development. see also; Shaffer v. City of Winston, 576 ~.2d 823 (1978). Miller vJ Schoene, 276 U.S. 272, 48 $.Ct. 246, 72 L.Ed. 568 (1928). ConstructiOn , ,, Does Public School Need Commission's Approval to Build Athletic Field? Hot~kinsPille-Christian County Planning Commission v. Christian County ~oard of Education, 903 S.W.2d 531 (Kentucky) 1995 In 1992;~ softball field facilities for day and night games were built on property thai belonged to Hopkinsville High School, in Christian County, Ky. NeighborhoOd residents complained to the Hopkinsville City Council. The council found that the Hopkinsville-Christian County Planning Commission had never reviewed the facilities, so it sent the matter to the commission. The comWission told the county Board of EduCation (school board) that it violated a stgte statute When it built the facilities without commission approval. Under the statute, the commission had to review all Proposed changes to pub- lic facilities~o see if they agreed with the comprehensive plan. The commis- sion had 60 4ays to review the proposal and issue written suggestions for how the proposedi changes could better fit the comprehensive plan's objectives, if at all. No per.'-mits to build or occupy public facilities could be issued without this proceduge taking place. The school board said it might voluntarily follow any recommendation the commiss~n made, but did not have to because a different statute applied. Under that statute, "Any proposal affecting land use by any department, com- mission, board, authority, agency, or instrumentality of state government shall not require approval of the local planning unit [emphasis added]." The stat- ute said sucl~i entities had to give the planning commission information on proposed land use changes, but did not have to get the commiSsion's approval before making.th.em. The com~xss~on sued the school board, asking the court to declare that the school board needed its approval. The court found for the school board, and the commission appealed.