Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/03/2006

Home

Page 6-July 10,2006 Z.B. tion was denied because it violated the 42 inches offIl11imitation. However, the - court found that the department acted outside its scope of authority by consid- ering storm water runoff, for which the property was clearly exempt. In addition, Nilsson's other non-contiguous real estate holdings were irrelevant to the is- sue as to whether the subject parcel was entitled to zoning relief. Because the court determined that the department had abused its discre- - tion, the decision was reversed. see also: MatterofDexterv. TownBd. of the Town of Gates, 324N.E.2d870(l975). Inverse Condemnation:""- County annexes land leased with intention of mining Lessee argues annexation amounts to illegal taking Citation: Material Service Corp. v. Rogers County Commissioners, - Court. of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, Division One, No. 102,496 (2006) OKLAHOMA (03/29/06) - Material Service Corp. (MSC) leased a parcel of land in Rogers County on which it planned to mine limestone. Prior to entering the lease agreement, the Rogers County Metropolitan Area Planning Commis- sion told MSC that there were no county zoning regulations in effect on the subject property that would prevent it from undertaking mining operations. However, sometime thereafter, the county commissioners voted to annex the property and declared that the property was subject-to zoning regulations that would prevent MSC from mining it. MSC sued the commission, claiming that the commission failed to give adequate notice of the annexation proceed- ings. The trial court found in favor of the commission, but, on appeal, the notice was ruled constitutionally defective and the attempted annexation was voided. MSC then filed a second action claiming inverse condemnation, alleging that the commission had interfered intentionally with its contractual rights and prospective miningbusiness.MSC asked the court to declare that the zoning restrictions on the property were invalid. The commission asked the court to find in its favor without a trial on the grounds that: 1) it was immune from liability under the Government Tort Claims Act (Act); and 2) there had been no taking sufficient to support a claim of inverse condemnation. Although the court found that the zoning restrictions were invalid, it con- cluded that - because the annexation and ensuing attempts to regulate the land were deemed to be legislative functions protected unilaterally by the Act - the commission was free from liability. The court also found in the commission's favor with regard to the inverse condemnation claim, but did not specify how it reached that decision. MSC appealed. DECISION: -Reversed and returned to the trial court for further proceedings. The appeals court concluded that the trial court ruled properly on the issue of immunity. Annexation and zoning were clearly legislative functions, and the commission therefof.e was immune from liability under the Act. However, the 90 @ 2006 Quinlan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048. ~- ( (---