Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/07/2005

Home

154 Page 8 --March lO, 2005 Z,B. because of the already existing residential structure. DECISION: Affirmed. There was no taking of Borsuk's land. A land-use regulation did not become a taking if it substantially advanced legitimate state interests and did not deny economically viable use of land. Diminution in property value caused by a regulation, standing alone, could not establish a taking. Instead, the taking issue was resolved by focusing on the uses the regulation still permitted. Borsuk derived rental income from the.residence on hislot. Clearly, a rented residence was an economically viable use of land. While the value of the land may have been reduced, he still received an econorrdc benefit from it. see also: Ogden v. Premier Properties USA Inc., 755 N.E. 2d 661 (2001). see also: Board of Commissioners v. Three [ Properties, 787 N. E. 2d 967 (2003). Spot Zoning-- Landowner requests residential property be rezoned to office Neighboring property owners want land to remain residential Citation: Tippitt v. City of Hernando, Court of Appeals of Mississippi, No. 2003-CA-00938 COA (2005) MISSISSIPPI (01/25/05) --Ward filed an application with the city of Hemando planning comm_ission requesting her property be rezoned fi:om residential to office so she could operate a beauty salon. Despite neighborhood opposition, the commission approved her request. Neighboring property owners sued the city. The court ruled in the city's favor, finding the approval was in compliance with the city's comprehensive zoning plan. The neighbors appealed, arguing the city engaged in illegal spot zoning when it rezoned Ward's property. DECISION: A filmed. A zoning ordinance or amendment could not be considered spot zoning if enacted in accordance with a comprehensive zoning plan. The city of Hernando's comprehensive plan of 1993 permitted, as an excep- tion for residential areas, "small-scale.office activities used pr/ncipally for tran- sition and buffering between residential uses and incompatible non-residential activities." Ward's property was bound on the north and east sides by commercially- zoned property while bound on the others by residentially-zoned property. As a result, reclassifying Ward's lot as office was in accordance with the compre- hensive plan, so the city's approval of Ward's application could not be deemed improper as spot zoning. see also: Btu'dine v. Ci~. of Greenville, 755 So.2d ]154 (t999). see also: Walters v. Ci~. of Greenville, 75] So.2d 1206 (1999). © 2005 Quinlan Publishing Group, Any reproduclion is prohft3ited. For more intorma£fon please call (617) 542-0048.