Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/05/2006

Home

Page 6 -August 25, 2006 Z.B. r that was s~bject to certain restrictive covenants. The covenants stated that there had to be five parking spaces for every 1,000 square feet of floor space for any building on the property. The covenants ran with the land and were en- forceable by SuperValu Holdings Inc. Wal-Mart filed an application with the Union Township Zoning Commis- sion, requesting an amendment to the planned development where Wal-Mart's property was located. Under Wal-Mart's plan, part of the parking lot fot a proposed new "supercenter" was on property restricted by the covenants. However, the new proposal called for fewer parking spaces per square feet than required by the restrictive covenants. . The zoning commission recommended approval of the plan, and the town- ship adopted it. The township then passed zoning amendments allowing Wal- Mart to relocate the parking lot for the s~ore from the restricted property, while remaining in compliance with the township code. SuperValu sued, and the court ruled in favor of the township. SuperValu appealed, arguing that the township deprived SuperValu of its property interest in the restrictive covenants without due process of law by enacting zoning code amendments illegally, which allowed Wal-Mart to circum- vent the covenants. DECISION:A.ffinned. { SuperValu's due process rights were not violated. It was undisputed that SuperValu had a property interest in the restrictive. covenants. However, SuperValu failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of fact as to whether the state interfered with that property interest. Nothing in the record indicated that SuperValu was ever deprived of or prevented from enforcing its rights under the restrictive covenants. Union Township's amendments to its zoning code did not diminish any property rights held by SuperValu. Those amendments allowed W~-Mart to adjust its site plan so that it did not conflict with SuperValu's property ri-ghts., SuperValu's rights in the restrictive covenants remained unaffected. . Ultimately, there was no due process violation because the amendments did not affect the validity or enforceability of the restrictive covenants. see also: Stile v. Copley Township, 115 F.Supp.2d 854 (2000). Special Exception Use - Property owner seeks special exception before selling property to casino developer Zoning commission denies request and rezones property Citation: Prest v. Parish of Caddo, Court of Appeals of Louisiana, Second Circuit, No. 41,039-CA (2006) LOUISIANA (06/02/06) - Prest was the owner of a parcel of land on a highway { in Caddo Parish. In 2003, Horn entered ~nto an agreement with Prest to buy the 74 @ 2006 Quinlan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048.