01/06/05 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Z.B. November 25, 2004-- Page 7 its abil/ty to serve communion wine. Also, the regulations prohibited the church from offering any meals other than "breakfast,--snagks, coffee, and tea se~ice," thereby preventing its plan to supply ovemi~ht participants with lunch and dinner. Ultimately, desig'nation as a bed and breakfast would have the effect of barring the church from using the property in the exercise of its reh~on, and the township's refusal to allow a variance constituted a substantial burden on that exercise. see also: DiLaura v. Ann. Arbor Charter Township, 30 Fed. Appx. 501 (2002). Damages -- City delays development project to fix sewer Developer claims city responsible for financial losses caused by delay Citation: Greenway Enterprises Inc. v. City of Frankfort, Court ojdAppeals of Kentucky,, No. 2003-CA-OOlj69-MR (2004) GEORGIA (10/08/04) -- Greenway Enterprises Inc. purchased the f~h phase of a new development called "The .Links at Duckers Lake." Although the other four phases were completed on time, the fifth phase ran into problems With its sewer connection. In the fifth phase, Greenway submit- ted a tentative development plan to the planning commission for review and acceptance as a final plat. Finahzing the plat allowed all parties" fights and expectations to be fixed. However, phase five could not be finalized because the sewer department would not permit Greenway to tap into the city sewer until problems were fixed in the collection system. Eventually, the collection problem was fixed and phase five was allowed to tap into the sewer system, but only after costly delays. Greenway sued, seeking damages for the delay caused by the city's failure to allow phase five to tap into the city's sewer system due to poor collector system maintenance. The court ruled in the city's favor. Greenway appealed, arguing ,it was the city's actions that caused its financial loss, and the sewer plant always had the capacity to handle the addition of phase five. DECISION: A ffirmed. Greenway was not entitled to damages. While it was true the sewer plant had the capacity to handle phase five, the infiltration of groundwater' into the collector system overloaded the plant's capacity during rains and flooding. The city made a decision not to allow new hookups until the system was repaired to handle the problem, iSince-the city had not yet-extended or given final approval to the extension of service to phase five, Greenway did not have fixed rights or expectations. Greenwa~, was not a customer, so the decision of when or if to extend sewer lines or to allow additional tap-ins was a legislative decision. Until the hookup was approved, the city was exercising a [egislative ,)r discretionary function and rherefore had no liability. xee ~ffxo: Fanero ~. Davix. 63 S. W. 3d 310 (2001). 2004 ~uinlan Puotishing Group. Any ~'eproduction is :prohibited. For more ~nformation 91ease tail (61D 542-00J8. 91