Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/06/2006

Home

February 10, 2006-- Page 5 the Clark County Board of Zoning Appeals. Shelly applied for a conditional use permit. After public hearings, the board denied the permit. It found that Shelly had not demonstrated the mitring opera- tion would not be detrimental to surrounding properties; that all equipment would be maintained and used in a manner that minimized noise, vibration, and. dust; that the operation would be carried out in a mnnner that minimized noise, vibration, and dust; and that the access road would be maintained in a dust-free condition. Shelly sued. Ar the same time, Shelly initiated a suit in state court to force the local government to start eminea! domain proceedings. The court ruled in the board's favor in the f'zrst suit. Shelly appealed, arguing its constitutional ri~ts were being violated by an unconstitutional taking of its property. DECISION:Affirmed. An application of zoning regulations was a taking if the property owner was denied all economically beneficial or productive use of the property in ques- tion. But it was legal to take property as long as there was just compensation for it. Consequently, if a state provided an adequate procedure for seeking just compensation, a takings claim was not ready to litigate until the property owner used the procedure and was denied just compensation. Ohio provided a procedure for obtaining just compensation for a govern- mental talcing. Importantly, a property, owner could sue to force government officials to commence eminent domain proceedings. Since Shelly's suit to force the government to act was still pending in state court, the federal court had to wait until that state court made a decision before a federal suit could continue. see also: Shelly Materials Inc. v. Daniels, 788 N.E.2d 647 (2003). · see also: EIsass v. Shelby County Board of Commissioners, 751 N.E. 2d 1032 (2001). Variance -- Board grants'variance to build two houses The building of two residences was not the only possible use of the property Citation: Vine v. Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of North Branford, Appellate Court of Connecticut, No. AC 25837 (2005) CONNECTICUT (01/03/06) -- M & E Construction Inc. sought to combine three lots into two proposOd lots, A and B, and to build a residential home on each. A portion of proposed lot A was encumbered by an above~ound utility easement for electr/cal transgression lines that Connecticut Light and Power had obtained in 1981 after initiating condemnation proceedings. The town's zoning regulations included a requirement for a lS0-foot build- @ 7.006 Quinlan Puolish~n§ Group. Any reproduction is pro~ib~teQ. For more information please call (617} S42-0048. 95