Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/05/2007

Home

March 1, 20071 Volume 1 [No, 5 Osborn appealed the denial of the housing permits to the board of zoning ap- peals, but the board dismissed the appeal. Osborn then appealed to the city coun- cil, but the council did not act on the appeal. Ultimately, Osborne .filed a petition in court seeking the approval of the building permits, and the permits were issued. Osborn sued the city and the commlll1ity development director, Mann, claiming that the actions-and/or lack thereof-by the city and Mann vio- lated its constitutional due process and equal protection rights. Mann and the city asked for the claims to be dismissed, claiming that the issuance of plat approval and building permits were not protected property rights and that, at any rate, Osborn received adequate due process. DECISION: Request to dismiss denied. For a constitutional due process claim to proceed, Osborn had to show that: 1) it had a protected property interest; and 2) that the city and/or Mann had deprived it of its property .interest. Mann and the city claimed that Os- born failed to show a constirntional deprivation because it did not have a protected property interest; Mann argued that the building permits and plat approval were privileges, not rights. The court disagreed. Case law existed that made zoning decisions, site-plan rejection, and housing proposals ground for substantive due process claims. Fur- thermore, it found that deprivation did not require evidence that all use of the property had been denied, but rather that there was some form of interference in the property owner's use of his or her propeny that was irrational or arbitrary. Here, the record indicated that Osborn had met all requirements for plat approval and the building permits, yet the city refused to grant them. Al- though the burden of showing that a zoning decision was irrational was a heavy one, Osborn still had the right to make that claim, and the evidence in the record supported it. Additionally, Osborn claimed that the city had "improperly diverted" its zoning requests so that Mann could deny them. It also argued that Mann denied the applications improperly, relying on the litigation to .stall the de- velopment of the property. J\1ann argued that he could not be held liable personally, but the court disagreed, noting that "where a building official unlawfully impose[d] false requirements or otherwise unconstitutionally deprive[d] a developer of permits to which the developer" [was] entitled, he might be held liable, individually, for a constitutional violation." The court allowed the claims against Mann and the city to proceed. See also: Sullivan v. Town of Salem, 805 E2d 81 (2d Gir. 1986). See also: Polem v. Parrott, 883 R2d 551 (7th Gir. 1989). Ordinance-City says removing trees from 'partially developed' land requires permit under ordinance Landowners argue ordinance is ambiguous Citation: Sleasman v. Sleasman v. City of Lacey, 2007 WL 416365 (Wash. 2007) WASHINGTON (02f08f07)-Sleasman owned a 12,632-square foot lot, on which he lived in a single-family home, in the city of Lacey. After cutting down 18 trees in his backyard, the city notified him that he had violated a zoning orqinance. 6 104 \ j J