Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/11/2007

Home

Zoning Bulletin mond Road, Church Street, Meadow Street, and Flicker Road. Gener- ally, those portions of the roads that were not paved were subject to a two-ton weight limit, and the paved roads or sections thereof were subject to the ten-ton limit. Blackwood, Inc. owned approximately 1,847 acres in a conserva- tion mining district in the tOV'lll.ship. An active railroad line bisected the property into northern and southern sections; the roads affected by the ordinance ran through Blackwood's northern property. Other than the existing two-ton limit on Flicker Road, the other three roads did not have any weight restrictions previously. Blackwood contested the ordinance in court, arguing that the ordi- nance was d~signed primarily to preclude the mining of its property. Blackwood claimed that the ordinance prevented it from the legal, best use of its property-in other words, it created a regulatory tak- ing-and that the township had violated its due process rights and the township's vehicle code. Blackwood sought a declaration from the cOurt that the ordinance was not valid. Alternately, Blackwood sought a statement from the court as to whether it could obtain damages from the township for exercising a taking without just compensation. The court denied Blackwood's request for declaratory relief, finding that the vehicle code authorized the township to place weight limita- tions on its roads in order to ensure the safety of motorists. The court also found that the study of the roads supported the township's deci- sion to enact the orclli"1ance. The court further found that the weight limitations were reasonable, particularly on the unpaved roads, which were considered dangerous already. BlackviTood appealed, arguing that the trial court ignored substan- tial ev-idence that supported its assertion that the ordinance placed unreasonable weight limits on the roads. Blackwood claimed that the lower court erred as a matter of law or abused its discretion in deny- ing the request for declaratory relief. Decision: Affirmed. On appeal, Blackwood argued that the ordinance amounted to a taking of its property because it limited its ability to run a lucrative coal mining business. Blackwood offered case law that showed that obstructing a potential use-as opposed to solely blocking an existing use--could be 'considered a taking. However, Blackwood produced no evidence to support the claim that an ordinance should be considered invalid because it resulted in a taking. Blackwood also argued that the ordinance was not valid because of language ir.i the vehicle code that required municipal-imposed re- 6 102