Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/02/2005

Home

Page 8 -- April 25, 2005 In the end, the prohibition, and the specific facts concerning Sloe's prop- erty, made it illegal for Sloe to sell motor vehicles on his property. see also: Chubbv. Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation, 690 N.E. 2d.I267 (]998). see also: Perez v. Cleveland, 678 N.E. 2d 537 (1997).' Planned Urban Development-- City wants to rezone oil company's land away from heavy industrial Oil company claims city is misusing its power Citation: Molo Oil Company v. The City of Dubuque, Supreme Court of iowa, No. 162/03-t623 (2005) IOWA (02/18/05) -- Molo Oil Company owned property south of Ice Harbor in Dubuque. Its property was zoned heavy industrial. The city designated the area near Ice Harbor as an urban renewal district. The city eventually decided the 1~est use of the area around Ice Harbor was not heavy industrial. Ultimately, it planned to build a river recreational area with a water park and an aquarium. Molo sued, and the court ruled in the city's favor. Molo appealed, arguing the city rezoned the area to force it to relocate and the rezoning was not a valid exercise of the city's power. DECISION: Affirmed. The city's enactment of the planned urban development was a proper exer- cise of its police power. The city retained experts in urban planning and design to formulate the Port of Dubuque Master Plan. After reviewing the reports of the experts and receiv- ing input from its citizens at public hearings, the city concluded the rezoning encouraged efficient urban development patterns, promoted the health and general welfare by prohibiting new or expanded development that would be inconsistent with surrounding developments, and was made to encourage the most appropriate use of the la-nd. Industrial uses, by their nature, tended to generate levels of smoke, dust, noise, or odors rendering them incompatible with most other uses, and there was no adequate way to screen the area around Ice Harbor. Also,-there were access problems due to the railroad tracks, and businesses in the area were not using the riverfront. Finally, substantial evidence supported the claim the plan would add a substantial number of new jobs to the area and:increase property values by at least $40 million, resulting in a million dollars per year in added tax revenue to the city. see also: osage Conservation Club v. Board Of Supervisors, 611 N. W. 2d 294 (2000). see also: QualiU Refrigerated Services Inc. v. City of Spencer, 586 N. W. 2d 202 (1998). " © 2005 C~uinlan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048. 120