Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/01/2004

Home

Page 6 -- March 10, 2004 The statutory change caused by the zoning resolution did not change the fact the state legislature intended a board of zoning appeals to have the power to authorize variances from the terms of the zoning resolution that were not contrary to the public interest. The townsh/p zoning resolution was clearly inconsistent with the General Assembly's statutory command because it stated, the board of zoning appeals had no authority to permit a use variance prohibited by the resolution. Conse- quently, the restriction was invalid. see also: Dsuban v. Union Township Board of Zoning Appeals, 748 N'£.2d 597 (2000). see alxo: Cole v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 317 N.E. 2d 65 (1973). Eminent Domain -- City values land as residentially zoned £andowner claims it shouM be valued as if commercially developed Citation: Port of Seattle v. RST Enterprises [nc., Co~rt of Appeals of Washington, Div. 1, No. 507J6-8-I (2004) WASHINGTON (01/20/04) -- RST Enterprises Inc. owned a parcel of land near the Seattle~Tacoma International Airport. After the city of SeaTac was incorporated, the city zoned the property urban low density residential. A year later, the city began to consider a plan for the area surrounding RST's land. Several years after that, RST sought to rezone its parcel to indus- trial or commercial high density. The city decided to defer the request until the area plan was finished. The city ultimately decided to take RST's land through eminent domain. The city's appraiser estimated the fair market value of the land with the high- est and best use as a single-family residence and working farm. However, RST argued the land was improperly zoned and should have been valued as a com- mercial property. RST sued, and the court ruled in favor of the city. RST appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. Because RST failed to provide evidence of costs, there was no indication the valuation would have changed if the property had been assessed as com- mercially zoned. Rezoning the land was unlikely because of noise levels and a planned th/rd runway for the airport. RST's development proposal was impractical and failed to address issues caused by the property's wetlands, prior croplands, 100-year floodplain, steep slopes, and access problems. Property was usually valued under the zoning that existed on tlxe date of possession unless there was a reasonable probability the zoning would change in the near future. Valuation could not be based on remote, imaginary, or specu- lative uses. Any evidence that legitimately affected the property's marl,~et value was