Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/06/2018

Home

August 25, 2018 I Volume 12 I Issue 16 Zoning Bulletin of beach access (i.e., it didn't need to own the fee simple). Furthermore, the court noted that the jury's award of inverse condemnation damages was based on an appraisal by the Chmielewskis' expert who used a "before and after" approach to determine the loss of value to the Chmielewskis' property as a result of the easement -type taking, which thus did not reflect a market valuation of the fee simple estate. Accord- ingly, the court affirmed the district court's ruling denying the City's request to transfer title of the beach parcel. However, the Eleventh Circuit also made clear in its holding that the City had "paid for, and is entitled to, a permanent easement across the Chmielewskis' beach prop- erty for the benefit of the public." See also: Nollan a California Coastal Com'n, 483 U.S. 825, 107 S. Ct. 3141, 97 L. Ed. 2d 677, 26 Env't. Rep. Cas. (BNA) 1073, 17 Envtl. L. Rep. 20918 (1987). See also: Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419, 102 S. Ct. 3164, 73 L. Ed. 2d 868, 8 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1849 (1982). See also: Smith v. City of Tallahassee, 191 So. 2d 446 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966). Case Note: The City had also sought a new trial on both counts. The appellate court concluded that there was no basis to grant a new trial. Vested Rights/Preemption—Under county zoning ordinance, licensed medical cannabis dispensary is denied a building permit Dispensary sues claiming entitlement to the permit and arguing state cannabis regulations preempt the county ordinance Citation: Hippocratic Growth, LLC v. Board of County Commission- ers of Queen Anne's County, 2018 WL 3343588 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2018) MARYLAND (07/09/18)—This case addressed the issue of whether a medical cannabis dispensary possessed a protected property inter- 6 © 2018 Thomson Reuters