Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Zoning Bulletin <br /> <br />Condemnation-Airport seeks to condemn residential <br />use in safety buffer zone <br /> <br />Property owner claims less restrictive action is available <br /> <br />Citation: Metropolitan Airports Com'n v. Brandon Square III, 2007 <br />WL 1322320'(Minn. Ct. App. 2007) <br /> <br />MINN"ESOTA (OS/08/07)-The Metropolitan Airports Commission <br />(MAC) was a 'municipal entity that, in part, created and oversaw <br />safety zones near airport runways. To that end, the MAC participat- <br />ed in the creation of zoning regulations with the city of Bloomington. <br />As a municipal entity, it had the authority to condemll buildings and <br />property that were not in compliance with zoning and safety regula- <br />tions related to land use around the airport. <br />In 2001, the MAC approved the acquisition of several residential <br />properties to mitigate harm caused by increased noise from planes <br />landing on a newly constructed runway. One of the properties that <br />was acquired was an apartment complex called Brandon Square III. <br />The MAC initiated condemnation proceedings against Brandon <br />Square, but it did not seek to condemn vacant or commercial proper- <br />ties that were adjacent to Brandon Square. <br />Essentially, the MAC asked the court to approve the acquisition <br />of the property by approving the estimate that was assessed as just <br />compensation for the property. The government had the right to take <br />private property for public use if the owner was justly compensated. <br />However, there were two ways the property in this case could have <br />been taken: 1) the MAC could purchase the land outright and Bran- <br />don Square would have no further investment in the land; or 2) the <br />MAC could condemn the existing use of the land, raze the building, <br />but continue to lease the land to Brandon Square. <br />Brandon Square argued that, once'the apartment building was re- <br />moved, the property would be no different from the adjacent prop- <br />erties that the MAC was not trying to acquire. It asked the court to <br />reject the .M.A.C's proposal for outright taki~g of the land, <br />The court ultimately approved the MAC's request. Brandon Square <br />appealed, arguing that the decision to condemn the property was arbi- <br />trary and capricious. <br /> <br />Decision: Affirmed. <br /> <br />The court could overturn the decision to condemn only if it was "ar- <br />bitrary, unreasona"ble, or capricious, or [if] the evidence against the <br /> <br />8 <br /> <br />92 <br />