Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/07/2006

Home

Page 4 - August 10; 2006 Z.B. ... The 9th Circuit found that the city ordinance allowed local regulators to consider -~esthetic evidence to deny a permit to construct telecommunications . towers - in conflict with the code. Therefore, the state law preempted the ordinance, so the decision for the city was reversed. The city relied on an amendment to the utilities code that stated that "mu- nicipalities [had] the right to exercise reasonable control as to the time, place, and manner in which roads, highways, and waterways are accessed." However, the language in the amendment limited the city's regulatory latitude to issues pertaining to "time, place, and manner" - not aesthetics. The 9th Circuit noted that interpreting "manner" to include appearance was stretching the plain meaning of the amendment, and that coupled with "time and place," it seemed even less likely that aesthetics were intended to be sub- ject to regulation. Further, the words "are accessed" specified that the regula- tion extended only to how roads were used, not the way that they appeared. see also: TiIy B. Inc. v. City of Newport Beach, 81 Cal.Rptr.2d 6 (1998). Condemnation - Transportation department refuses to give landowner appraisal report State law requires letter including proposed compensation and basis for computing it only /- Citation: Department of Transportation of the State of Illinois v. Tucker, f. Appellate Court of Illinois, Jrd Dist., No. 3-05-0277 (2006) ILLINOIS (06/13/06) - The illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) filed a condemnation complaint regarding property over which Tucker was the trustee. The property was approximately three-quarters of an acre in a 160-acre tract of farmland. The property already was dedicated for state highway use before the condemnation proceeding began. In compliance with state law, mOT sent Tucker a letter regarding the basis for computing the total approved compensation.and its offer to purchase the land. Tucker requested a copy of mOT' s appraisal report, which it refused to give to him. Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of mOT, awarding a certain amount of compensation to Tucker and vesting title to the property in mOT. Tucker appealed, arguing IDOT had failed to negotiate in good faith as required by law. The basis of his allegation was IDOT's refusal to disclose its appraisal report during negotiations regarding the property. DECISION: Affirmed. IDOT was not required to furnish a copy of its appraisal report. The plain language of the relevant statute required only a condemn,ing agency to provide a letter conveying the offer and the basis used to arrive at the offer. Examples of such information could include the date of valuation, the total amount proposed as just compensation, the amount to be paid for damage to the landowner's remaining property, and the highest and best use in light of @ 2006 Quinlan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048. 92