Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/03/2005

Home

94 Page 4 -- January 25, 2005 Taking -- Landowner claims city encouraging Opry Argues amplified music results in taking without just compensation Citation: Horton v. City of Smithville, 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 04-50085 (2004) The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. TEXAS (12/08/04) --Horton complained Helmcamp's use of his neighboring prop. erty to stage the Waystat/on Opry, a live music event, violated the City of Smithville's ordinances. He also claimed the city encouraged Helmcamp's violation. Horton contended the noise created by amplified music and the crowds attending the Opry infringed his constitutional rights by depriving him of the peaceful enjoyment of his home and dimirfishing the value of his property. Ultimately, he beheved the city's support of Helmcamp's actions resulted in an unconstitutional taking of his property without just compensation. Horton sued, and the court ruled in favor of the city. Horton appealed. -DECISION:Affirmed. There was no apparent taking. The nature of the interference with Horton's property, although palpable when the Opry was in session, did not rise to the level of a taking. Helmcamp and Horton lived in a commercially-zoned district. According to Smithville's ordinance, the city could not grant noise permits to the same busi- ness more than twice a month. If a permit was granted, the noise had ~o cease no later than 10 p.m. Consequently, the Opry's noisy conduct lasted for a relatively insignificant time period, and did not interfere with one of the mor.e important rights enjoyed by property owners. Horton did not allege any physical invasion resulting from the Opry. Con- sequently, based on the allegations, the' Opry appeared to be more of a nui- sance to Horton than a taking of his property. see also: Sandy Creek Investors Ltd. v. City of Jonestown, 325 F. 3d 623 (2003). see also': John Corporation v. City of Houston, 214 E3d 573 (2000). Variance -- Variance granted for large advertising sign Local activists appeal decision Citation: Society Created to Reduce Urban Blight v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, No. 2829 C.D. 2003 (2004) PENNSYLVANIA (12/06/04) -- Ellsworth Associates and Clear Channel Out- door Inc. applied for a permit to erect a freestanding, double-faced, illumi- nated, non-accessory sign on Ellsworth's property located in a General In- dustrial zoning district. The sign was to be 20 feet high and 60 feet wide. © 2005 Quinlan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048.