Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/05/1997

Home

~ Page 6 - July 10, 1997 Z.B. Taking - Owner of beach front property says amendment will sink its profits Clearwater Holding Inc. v. Town of Hempstead, 655 N.Y.S.2d 768 (New York) 1997 Clearwater Holding Inc., owned oceanfront properties in the town of Hempstead, N.Y. For years Clearwater operated the properties as a beach club, with related uses such as restaurants and cabanas. In 1987, the town amended its zoning ordinance, changing the zoning of certain beachfront properties, including Clearwater's. Now, instead of being zoned residential or commercial, these properties became part of a marine- recreational district. The amended ordinance prohibited residential development on any of these properties. Clearwater asked the court to declare the amendment invalid, claiming it was an unconstitutional taking of property. The town asked for and was granted judgment without a trial. Clearwater appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. To prove the amendments amounted to an unconstitutional taking, Clearwater had to prove that no permitted use would be economically feasible for its properties. Clearwater failed to do so, and as a result, couldn't support its claims. Though the properties may have been more profitable with residential development, that was not enough to support Clearwater's claim of a taking. qg Board - Did board give sufficient proof of its decision? Mullen v. Zoning Hearing Board of Colling dale Borough, 691 A.2d 998 (Pennsylvania) 1997 Mullen wanted to build a structure on his property to house a used-car business and an office. Located in the borough of Collingdale, Pa., Mullen's property was zoned residential. Mullen applied to the borough's zoning hearing board for a permiftobuild on his property. The borough sent Mullen a letter, rejecting his request and informing him that the borough's ordinance didn't allow him to operate a busi- ness in the residential area. Mullen appealed to the board, requesting a variance. The board held a hearing and heard testimony. At the end of the hearing, the board told Mullen and his attorney it would meet three weeks later to decide. Three weeks later, the board met at a public work session, during which board members voted orally to deny Mullen's variance request. The board didn't record the meeting's minutes or the vote, and Mullen and his attorney did not attend the meeting. Two days later, the board sent Mullen a letter, signed by the board's solicitor, to explain its decision. Mullen appealed to court, and the borough intervened. Three months after the original hearing, the borough filed a written decision - containing findings of fact - stating Mullen had failed to prove he was entitled to a variance. The state code required a board to "make written findings on the application