Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/04/2003

Home

Z.B. October 25, 2003 -- Page represent the highest and best use of the property. The city appealed the court's valuation. DECISION: Affirmed. The property valuation was correct. The landowner was entitled to just compensation for the government's tak- ing of private property. Just compensation was determined by the property's market value by reference to the highest and best use for which the land was available and for which it was plainly adaptable. The current zoning of the property, as well as the likelihood of a zoning change, were properly taken into account. Ultimately, the possibility of a zon- ing change was very probable. Most of the area surrounding the property had been converted to commer- cial use. Bustos testified he bought the property with the intent of converting it into an office, despite the risk of' condemnation proceedings. He thought he could obtain a zoning variance for the property and convince the city to straighten Alta Drive through vacant land rather than simply widening it and condemning 16 properties. The property was accessible to downtown, Alta Drive had high traffic vol- ume, and Alta Drive was a designated entryway 'into a commercial develop- ment area. It seemed Bustos, as the buyer, could reasonably assume he could get professional zoning for the property. Citation: City of Las Vegas v. Bustos, Supreme Court ofNevada, ~Vo. 39252 (2003). see also: West Jefferson Levee D. v. Cost Quality, 640 So.2d 1258 (1994). see also: County of Clark v. Buck-walter, 974 P. 2d 1162 (1999). Conditional Use -- Litigation holds back start of construction project Local ordinance gives applicant one year within which to begin construction WISCONSIN (08/21/03) -- The University Of Wisconsin rec$ived a concti- tional use permit from the Dane County Board of Adjustment to build a radio tower for a student radio station. The town of Montrose sued, contending the conditional use permit was invalid under the local ordinance because the university failed to begum con- struction within one year of the date of approval. The ordinance provided "in any case where a conditional use permit, issued under this ordinance, had not been instituted or construction begun within one year of the date of approval,- without further action by the committee shall be null and void." The court ruled in favor of the university. The town appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. The conditional use permit was still valid. Due to intervening litigation, final county board action did not occur until three years after the permit's initial approval. Without a zoning permit, the 8a