Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/02/2005

Home

April 25, 2005 -- Page 5 Because of D' Andrea's request, Penn Hills received a temporary court or- tier stopping further development of the property to decide a boundary dispute with Wilkins. Eventually, the temporary order was dissolved, and the court ~'ound D'Andrea's planned building was completely with_in W'flkins and needed no approval from Penn Hills. D'Andrea sued Penn Hills, arguing Penn Hills's actions caused an uncon- ~';titutional taking. The court ruled in favor of Penn Hills. D'Andrea appealed, claiming the value of his property changed during the i:reeze on development. DE CISION: A ffirmed. The court determined there was no unconstitutional taking. While it was tree D' Andrea was temporarily deprived Of the most profitable or most desired use of his property, he was free to develop his property in other ways consistent with the zoning ordinances. Development was not contingent on any changes in zoning. Based on the testimony of local zoning officials, there were four uses for the land that were legally and physically feasible in both Penn Hills and Wilkins -- a funeral home, a private school, a recreational facility, or a senior citizerd~oup care facility. Additionally, D' Andrea was free to sell the property. Property could not be rendered valueless by a temporary prohibition on economic use because the property recovered the use as soon as the prohibi- tion was lifted. The mere fact that there were fluctuations in value during the process of governmental decision-making was merely part of owning a piece of property. Penn Hills's actions did not interfere with D'Andrea's long-term expectations l;'or the property, nor did such actions prevent D'Andrea from gaining a reason- able return on his investment. xee also: Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 535 U.S. 302, 122 S. Ct. 1465, 152 L. Ed. 2d 517 (2002). see also: Shaner v. Perry Township, 775 A.2d 887 (2001). Equal Protection -- Business claims it meets minimum requirements for license upgrade City council still denies request Citation: Deep Dish Inc. v. City of Minneapolis, Court bf Appeal$ of Minnesota, No. A04~728 (2005) MINNESOTA (03/08/05) -- Deep Dish Inc. operated a restaurant in Minneapolis. Because of competition from other restaurants, Deep Dish, applied for a liquor-license upgrade from sales of wine and beer to mixed drinks. Neighboring residents were opposed to the upgrade because they alleged Deep Dish hadn't complied with co'tnmunity agreements in the past. After sev- 2005 Quinlan P?Ulishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 5424048. 117