Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/01/2004

Home

Page 4 --May 10, 2004 TEXAS (02/12/04) -- The city of Mansfield wanted to build a new highway, part of which would be located on an undeveloped tract owned by CoNe. After being unable to reach an ageement with Coble, the city exercised its power of eminent domain to acquire by condemnation the easement for a per- manent right-of-way encompassing almost three acres of Coble's land. Following a hearing, a pane! of special commissioners awarded Coble dam- ages for the value of land taken. However, it awarded no damages for diminu- t/on in value to the remainder of the tract. Coble sued, arguing he was owed almost $200,000 more because a local ordinance required screening walls for residential developments neighboring highways. Although CoNe had no current development plans, ali parties agreed this would have been the highest and best use for the land. However, the city argued it did not owe Coble these damages because he had not yet chosen to develop the property as a residential subdivision. It claimed the requested damages would only be triggered when and if CoNe in fact de- cided to develop the property as a residential subdivision. The court ruled in the city's favor. CoNe appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. Under the circumstances, any damages claimed by CoNe to comply with the screening wall ordinance when developing the property as a residential subdivision were not reasonably foreseeable. Coble sought to recover the estimated cost of complying with the ordi- nance when it was merely speculative that he would have to do so. Coble produced no evidence he or a purchaser would ever have to comply with the ordinance. In fact, it was more than probable the property would be developed as a commercial property and not a residential one. Ultimately, Coble's alleged damages were too remote and conjectural to be awarded. see also: CiO, of Hartingen v. Estate of Sharboneau, 48 S.W. Jd 177 (200t). see also: Town of Flower Mound v. Stafford Estates Limited partnership, 71 S.W. 3d 18 (2002). Variance -- Developer wants to build multifamily dwellings on trapezoidal lot Would be bordered on one side by single-family homes Citation.' Dyke v. City od'Shaker l~eights, Court of Appeal~ of Ohio, 8th'App. Dist., Cuyahoga CounU, No. $3010 (2004) PHilO (02/05/04) ~ Southwick Investments LLC wanted to develop a series of buildings designed to took like traditional Shaker mansions. 'However, the 82 © 2004 Quinlan Puolishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048.