Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/08/2005

Home

Page 4 -- July 25, 2005 A fire occurred in 2002, destroying a substantial part of the property's buildings. Several months later, the town planner, dissatisfied with Rainbow Springs' lack of compliance with the town's instructions for property restora- tion, recommended that the town plan commission terminate the conditional use permit. Ultimately, the conditional use permit was revoked. Rainbow Springs sued, and the court ruled in favor of the town. Rainbow Springs appealed, arguing the loss of the conditional use permit deprived it of a valuable property interest and constituted an illegal taking. DECISiON:Affirmed. The town did not engage in an illegal taking. Revoking the conditional use permit did not deprive Rainbow Springs of a property interest. Importantly, a conditional use permit was merely a type of zoning designation, not a piece of property. Therefore, Rainbow Springs had no valid claim to bring to court. Rainbow Springs valued the conditional use permit because it allowed it to run a convention center, operate a haunted hotel, and provide live music and beer when the hotel was open. Although due process could require a hearing if a conditional use permit were a property interest, due process considerations and rights to be heard were not limited to situations involving the revocation of a property interest. Simply because something had due process implications did not make it a property interest. Rainbow Springs' right to be heard prior to revocation of the conditional use permit stemmed from the fact that revocation constituted a change in the conditional zoning designation which affected property Ra/nbow Springs owned, not because the conditional use permit itself was property. Therefore, revoking the perm_it could not be a taking of any sort of property. see also: Kraus v. Ciry ofWaukesha Police and Fire CommiSsion, 662 N. W. 2d 294 (2003). see also: Lawton v. Town of Barton, 692 N.W. 2d 304 (2004). Rezoning-- Small airport wants zoning changed to residential/commercial Would eliminate industrial uses in the area Citation: Grand/Sakawa Macomb Airporr LLC v. Township of Macomb, Court of Appeals of Michigan, No. 256013 (2005) MICHIGb~LN (06/07/05) -- Aviation Investment Corporation operated a small airport until 2003, when it began leasing the property to Berz for $33,000 a year. In an August 1998 sale agreement, Aviation agreed to sell the property to Grand/Sakawa Macomb Airport LLC for $14 million. The agreement was con- tingent on the property being rezoned from industrial to commercial and resi- dential. 222 © 2005 Oum~an Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohJbJtecl. For more information please call (617) $42-004~.