Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/07/2007

Home

April 15, 20071 Volume 11 No, 8 See also: Fulton County v. Congregation of Anshei Chesed, 275 Ga. 856,572 S.E.2d 530 (2002). See also: M01'gan County Bd. of Com'rs v. Mealor, 280 Ga. 241, 626 S.E.2d 79, 24 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 39 (2006). Inverse ,Condemnation-Property owner of land near airport claims land use plan amounts to taking Plan created non-buildable 'safety zone' around airport Citation: Frenchtown Charte1' Tp. v. City of Monroe, 2007 WL 866712 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007) MICHIGAN (03/22/0l)-Cousino owned a narrow strip of land in Frenchtown Township that abutted a landing strip of a small airport in the neighbori.11g city of Monroe. The land was zoned for agricul- tural use. Hoping to sell the property, Cousino applied to the to'\iV"llship for his land to be rezoned for a single-family residence. The township had to make a recommendation to the county plan- ning commission-the agency that would make the ultimate decision on Cousino's application. Initially, the township recommended approval, but the commission noted that there was a land use plan in existence that limited the use and zoning of land surrounding the airport. The plan-which had been approved by the stare's aeronautics commission in 2002-created a buHer zone around the airport by establishing an "accident safety zone." Cousino's land was located in this zone almost entirely. After learning of the plan, the township tabled the application. Cousino sued the city of Monroe, the county, and the state aeronau- tics commission in court (collectively, the defendants), claiming that the creation of the safety zone essentially rendered his property unsellable. Cousino claimed that this amounted to an illegal taking of his property, for which he claimed he had been offered up to $2 million contingent on the ability to develop the property for si.11gle-family use. Although Cousino eventually dropped the aeronautic commission from his suit, he added the township as a party responsible for the inverse condemna- tion of his land. The lower court found in favor of the defendants on the grounds that none had the authority to rezone the property in a manner contrary to the state-mandated land use plan for the area' surrounding the air- port. Cousino appealed. Decision: A.ffirmed. For a regulatory taking to occur, as Cousino claimed here, he had to show that a regulation enacted by the defendants created an economicldeprivation by interfering with a distinct investment-backed ex-pecta- tion. This kind of intrusion would be considered the "functional equiva- 5 169