Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/01/2004

Home

Z.B. May 10, 2004 -- Page 3 Taking -- Property owner wants to reside in educational annex City denies necessary permits and variances Citation: Centeno v. City of Alamo Heights, Court of Appeals of Texas, 4th Dist., San Antonio, No. 04-02-00677~CV (2004) · TEXAS (03/31/04) -- Centeno purchased property; including a structure that had once been used as military barracks and then as an educational annex for a local church. At the time of the purchase, the structure did not comply with the zoning code. Although aware that there had been a previous n, eed for. variances, Centeno nevertheless bought the property with the intent to reside in the structure. Seeking to bring the structure into compliance, Centeno applied for vari- ous permits and variances. However, a good portion of these were. denied, and Centeno was ordered to remove part of the structure. Centeno sued, and the court ruled in the city's favor. Centeno appealed, arguing the order resulted in an unconstitutional taking because it interfered with his investment-backed expectations. DECISION: Affirmed. No taking occurred. Simply because Centeno hoped to receive variances similar to those re- ceived by the previous owner, this was not enough to 15rove he had alegitimate investment-backed expectation in his planned use of the property. Knowledge of e,,dsting zoning was considered in determining whether a regulation inter~ered with investment~backed expectations. Although Centeno purchased the property for residential use, the primary expectatiofl of a landowner was presumed to be the e,,dsting and historical use of the property. Centeno did not dispute the property was historically used as an educational annex to a church. Moreover, at the.time of purchase, Centeno was aware of the city's zoning requirements and that some of those require- ments were not met by the property. Also, he was aware the property had requLred variances. Centeno's awareness weighed against his claim to legitimate investment- backed expectations. His mere hope that he'd receive the same treatment as the prior owner was not enough. see also: Hallco Texas [nc. v. McMullen County, 94 & W. 3d 735 (2002). xee also: Mavhew v. Town of Sunnyvale, 964 S. W. 2d 922 (]998). Condemnation -- Landowner wants compensation for residential screening wall No p&ns for residential development Citation: Coble ~. Ci~ of M~msfield. Co~trr of Appe~ls qf Texas, 2nd Dist., Fort Worth, No. 2-02-129-CV ('2004) 2004 Quinlan Publislning Group. Any ,-eproauction is prohibited. For more :nformation please call (617) 542-0048. 81