Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/08/2005

Home

~- Z.B. July 25, 2005 -- Page 5 Aviation asked the township to rezone the property,' and the township refused. The township contended the rezoning request would eliminate indus- trial development from the master plan because it would require the planned industrial developments between the subject property and residential property located to the east to be rezoned to residential. Aviation sued, claiming the townskip was engaging in an unconstitutional taking of its property, and the court ruled in its favor. The township appealed. DECISION: Reversed. There were no facts in the record to support a finding the .township's choice to zone Aviation's property for industrial usenegatively impacted the economi- cally viable use of the property, or that the regulation interfered with distinct, investment-backed expectations. Instead, the record showed Aviation, at the time of the original purchase, was aware of the land's current land use plans and zoning, but hoped for substantial industrial development in the area. The fact that the pace of industrial development in the surrounding area did not occur at the rate Aviation hoped was insufficient to constitute a taking where the township submitted evidence establishing the value of the property under its current zoning between $8 million and $9.2 million. While Aviation emphasized its inability to make a profit, distribute divi- dends, or sell the property as currently zoned, the takings clause did not guar- antee property owners an economic profit from the use of their land. Further- more, the mere diminution of property value by application of regulations, without more, did not amount to an unconstitutional taking. Aviation's own appraisal at the time of the sales agreement to sell the property to Grand/Sakawa valued, the property at $7 million. Moreover, Avia- tion received'S33,000 in'annual rental income. Notably, Aviation conceded it started its endeavor with the full knowledge that.an airport operation generally produced little or no profit. Aviation made no .attempt to market the property for 17 years until the Grand/Sakawa proposal. Therefore, the township's refusal, did not constitute a taking. see also: Walters v. Snyder, 608 N. W. 2d 97 (2000). see also: Landon Holdings Inc. v. Grattan Township, 667 N.W. 2d 93 (2003). Statute of Limitations -- Ongoing appeals and litigation after addition built No lawsuit to enforce the zoning code Citation: Benson v. Zoning Board.of Appeals of the Town of Westport, Appellate Court of Connecticut, No. AC 25]48 (2005) CONNECTICUT (05/31/05) -- In 1995, Benson was ~anted a variance to build © 2005 Ouinlan Publist~ing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048. 223