Laserfiche WebLink
154 <br /> <br />Page 6 -- January 10, 2004 <br /> <br /> It was clear the unified development code constituted a city-wide zoning <br />change because it was designed to modify and modernize the 1989 zoning <br />code as it pertained to zoning classifmation, subdivision development, and other <br />regulation of land use within the city. <br /> Since the unified development code did not receive a majority vote in wards <br />one and two, it could not be enforced in any part of the city. <br />Citation: State of Ohio v. City of Twinsburg Insurance Company, Court of <br />Appeals of Ohio, 9th App. Dist., Summit Co., No. 21491 (2003). <br />see also: Ferrito v. Twinsburg, 2003 Ohio !302 (2003). <br /> <br />Inverse Condemnation -- Property owner claims lot locked in by <br />subdivision <br />Sues town for alleged damages <br /> <br />NEW YORK (11/03/03) q The Town of Ramapo approved a subdivision plan, <br />which Linzenberg claimed locked in his substandard lot. He applied for two <br />area variances to build a single-family home on his property. Both variances <br />were defied. <br /> Linzenberg sued, claiming the town's actions resulted in an inverse con- <br />demnation of his property. <br /> The court ruled in favor of the town. <br /> Linzenberg appealed. <br />DECISION: Affirmed. <br /> The city's actions did not constitute an inverse condemnation of Linzenberg's <br />property. <br /> Linzenberg never had an absolute right to build a single-family home on <br />the premises without a variance. <br /> Even if Linzenberg had a recognizable property right, his conctusory alle- <br />gations that the property could not yield an economically reasonable return as <br />it was presently zoned were insufficient to establish an unconstitutional taking. <br />Citation: Linzenberg v. Town of Ramapo, Supreme Court of New York, App. <br />Div., 2nd Dept., No. 2003-00890 (2003). <br />see at~o: Gazza v. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, <br />679 N.E. 2d 1035. <br />see also: Spears v. Berte. 397 XE. 2d 1304. <br /> <br />Subdivision -- Plan denied because of density concerns <br />Board believes proposal is inconsistent with area <br /> <br />NORTH CAROLINA (11/04/03) -- William Brewster Company Inc. wanted <br />[o build a new subdivision on property zoned as Open Space District. Accord~ <br />ing/y, it submitted an application and subdivision sketch plan for town approval. <br /> Tl~e sketch plan proposed 145 single-family detached houses constructed <br />on property at a gross density of 2.48 houses per acre. Although the planning <br /> <br /> <br />