Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/06/2013

Home

Zoning Bulletin April 25, 2013 I Volume 7 I Issue 8 Still, the court acknowledged that, where a regulation places limitations on land that fall short of eliminating all economically beneficial use, a taking nonetheless may have occurred, depending on a complex set of factors, including: (1) the regulation's economic effect on the landowner; (2) the extent to which the regulation interferes with reasonable investment -backed expecta- tions; and (3) the character of the government action. Looking at these factors with regard to Midwest's Property, the court found: (1) that Midwest could not show a significant economic effect as a result of the alleged taking because Midwest had not purchased the subject property for the purpose of harvesting and processing methane gas in the first instance and had not held the property for many years without using it for any purpose; (2) that with respect to the alleged impact on reasonable investment -backed expecta- tions, the evidence showed that any impact was insignificant since there was no evidence of any contractual deadlines for beginning construction on the molecular gate processing unit, and that nearly two years after the public wa- ter condition was struck down construction had yet to begin on the processing unit; and (3) that the character of the government action in this case supported the conclusion that there was no taking, for while the public water condition was ultimately struck down, the BZA implemented it believing it to be in the best interests of the public health. The court concluded that the 17-month period of time that the public water condition was implemented did not constitute inverse condemnation. See also: Ragucci v. Metropolitan Development Com'n of Marion County, 702 N.E.2d 677 (Ind. 1998). See also: Board of Zoning Appeals, Bloomington, Ind. v. Leisz, 702 N.E.2d 1026 (Ind. 1998). Standing —Nonprofit organization challenges state environmental agency's decision regarding planned Wal=mart Wal-Mart argues the organization Tacks standing to bring the challenge Citation: Clean Water Advocates of New York, Inc. v. New York State Dept. of Environmental Conservation, 103 A.D.3d 1006, 2013 WL 626923 (3d Dep't 2013) NEW YORK (02/21/13)—This case addressed the issue of whether a non- profit organization had standing to challenge a determination of a state environmental agency to accept a stormwater pollution prevention plan ("SPPP") in connection with a proposal to construct a large retail store. The Background/Facts: Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. ("Wal-Mart") sought to construct a Wal-Mart Supercenter in the Town of Lockport, Niagara County, © 2013 Thomson Reuters 7