Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/04/2013

Home

Zoning Bulletin February 25, 2013 J Volume 7 Issue 4 was part of a unified plan which applied to all golf courses in the Town, :.., and the Town's use of tax map parcels as zoning district boundaries for each golf course [was] consistent with the stated tax - assessment purposes set forth in the CRO Ordinance." Finally, the court also held that the rezoning of the Golf Course Prop- erty did not amount to a categorical taking or a regulatory taking (under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution) of the Golf Club's property. The court found it was not a categorical taking because it did not deprive the Golf Club of "all economically beneficial uses" of its land; rather, the CRO designation permitted numerous recreation and conservation uses —which the Golf Club had failed to show were not economically beneficial. The court further found that the rezoning was not a regulatory taking because: the Town provided "legitimate and substantial public purposes" sought to be achieved in enactment of the CRO ordinance; the CRO designation did not eliminate all development potential, or "disadvantage" the Golf Club in a "constitutionally signifi- cant way" —since the CRO restrictions applied to all golf courses throughout the Town; and the Golf Course Property remained a valuable property, even if the rezoning denied the Golf Club its ability to exploit a property interest that it had believed was available for development. See also: Ed Robinson Laundry and Dry Cleaning, Inc. v. South Car - olina Dept. ofRevenue, 356 S.C. 120, 588 S.E.2d 97 (2003) (addressing equal protection rights). See also: Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003, 112 S. Ct. 2886, 120 L. Ed. 2d 798, 34 Env't. Rep. Cas. (BNA) 1897, 22 Envtl. L. Rep. 21104 (1992) (addressing categorical takings). See also: Penn Cent. Transp. Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104, 98 S. Ct. 2646, 57 L. Ed. 2d 631, 11 Env't. Rep. Cas. (BNA) 1801, 8 Envtl. L. Rep. 20528 (1978) (addressing regulatory takings). Zoning News from Around the Nation CALIFORNIA "Two medical marijuana cases going before the state Supreme Court could deteimine whether dispensary bans by dozens of California cities are legal." The case of the City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patient's Health and Wellness Center was scheduled to begin February 5. That case addresses the city's legal authority to ban marijuana dispensaries. In another upcoming case, City of Upland v. G3 Holistic Inc., a city's authority to ban medical marijuana dispensaries will also be argued, with lawyers for a dispensary "expected to argue that cities can't ban the © 2013 Thomson Reuters 11